seventy days unto the FINISH of Iniquity unto
desolation for them who Deny the Christ, Jesus the Lord.

Extra Extra

read all about it
!

High Treason

who need be HANGED in
Washington DC, before all the American people. Before they began decapitating
their opposition.

AIPAC'S
POWER BASEAMERICA'S REAL TERRORISTS!

By: Ted Lang

Our entire government is controlled by Israel! Through a small, rich and
powerful Jewish supported pro-Israeli tax-exempt lobby, the American Israel
Public Affairs Committee, or simply AIPAC, virtually all American domestic and
foreign policy is now being controlled by a foreign government entanglement.
This is done by targeting American politicians: those who are pro-Israel receive
campaign funding and favorable publicity through a myriad of Jewish
organizations, magnified by the liberal and Democratic Party-leaning American
press; those politicians not favoring policies benefiting Israel are targeted by
Jews all over America who send money to help finance that politician’s
opponent.

Former Georgia Congresswoman, Cynthia McKinney, who was critical of the
dominance Israel enjoyed controlling our government, was defeated in this way by
Jewish contributions coming in from all over the United States. Those
contributions had to be requested en masse, funneled to a finance manager, and
then distributed to all the right places to both the opposing candidate and key
media outlets to generate the necessary opposing campaign propaganda.

At the Republican Party’s highly expensive convention bash being
orchestrated smack in the middle of New York City this week, FOXNews.com
reports: "About 1,500 supporters of Israel attended the posh event
hosted by United Jewish Communities, the Republican Jewish Coalition
and the American-Israel Political Action Committee. The event, held at
Pier 60 in Manhattan, was attended by dozens of congressional members, governors
and administration officials, and featured Bloomberg, Senate Majority Leader
Bill Frist and Bush-Cheney campaign manager Ken Mehlman."

Posting on his website Informed Commentary, and carried on Antiwar.com’sas well, Professor Juan Cole, who teaches history at the University of
Michigan, writes in his August 28, 2004 piece entitled, "AIPAC’s Overt
and Covert Ops.": "The American Israel Public Affairs Committee is a
lobbying group that used to support whatever government was in power in Israel,
and used to give money even-handedly inside the US. My perception is that during
the past decade AIPAC has increasingly tilted to the Likud in Israel, and to the
political Right in the United States. In the 1980s, AIPAC set up the Washington
Institute for Near East Policy as a pro-Israeli alternative to the Brookings
Institution, which it perceived to be insufficiently supportive of Israel. WINEP
has largely followed AIPAC into pro-Likud positions, even though its director,
Dennis Ross, is more moderate. He is a figurehead, however, serving to disguise
the far right character of most of the position papers produced by long-term
WINEP staff and by extremist visitors and ‘associates’ (Daniel Pipes and
Martin Kramer are among the latter)."

Professor Cole continues: "WINEP, being a wing of AIPAC, is enormously
influential in Washington. State Department and military personnel are actually
detailed there to ‘learn’ about ‘the Middle East’! They would get a far
more balanced ‘education’ about the region in any Israeli university, since
most Israeli academics are professionals, whereas WINEP is a ‘think tank’
that hires by ideology."

There are many ways AIPAC magnifies its influence over American government,
and targeting politicians during elections is only one of them. In this
presidential election, reflect on how both Senator John Kerry and President
George Bush are one in their support for Israel. Note also how former
frontrunner Dr. Howard Dean became toast after he merely suggested a more
balanced approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which was created and
continues to be exacerbated by Israel’s imperialism and ethnocide.

Cole explains, "Note that over 80% of American Jews vote Democrat, that
the majority of American Jews opposed the Iraq war (more were against it than in
the general population), and that American Jews have been enormously important
in securing civil liberties for all Americans. Moreover, Israel has been a
faithful ally of the US and deserves our support in ensuring its security. The
Likudniks like to pretend that they represent American Jewry, but they do not.
And they like to suggest that objecting to their policies is tantamount to
anti-Semitism, which is sort of like suggesting that if you don't like Chile's
former dictator Pinochet, you are bigotted against Latinos."

This explanation is consistent with all that I have read on the subject.
Jewish Zionists and their more numerically powerful and vocal Christian
Zionists, will support any and all Israeli policies, and then smear
opponents as being "anti-Semitic." Perhaps a better term to describe
these war-mongering Jewish and Christian Zionists is to identify them as being
"Likudniks," indicative of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s
war-mongering and genocidal Likud Party. And it would be entirely safe to say
that a majority of Jews living in Israel also oppose Sharon’s atrocities
against the Palestinians, which is the ongoing basis for anti-Israeli terrorism
there responsible for the horrible deaths and maiming of so many of Israel’s
citizens.

AIPAC and the neoconservative Likudniks in the Pentagon and in the Bush
administration today represent the greatest threat to world peace. They are
plotting to ignite hostilities that could ratchet up to World War III. This
would fit in nicely with martial law control over the American populace as
General Tommy Franks envisioned, and could lead to US rule by a one government
international New World Order seemingly so desired by both Bush and Kerry. And
separate from a world engulfed in nuclear war, we have the constant threat of
terrorism by Muslim militants looking to hurt the people of "The Great
Satan" as protector of the most dangerous regime in the world: Sharon and
his Likud Party.

The "outbreak" of anti-Semitism all over the world is unmitigated
pap and nonsensical propaganda. Muslims are not out to destroy US because of our
wealth, or our freedom, or even because of our ties to, and origins as, a
Judeo-Christian nation; they foment terrorism against US because of our military
might as the world’s greatest super power enabling Israeli ethnocidal
imperialism. It is Israel that is the trigger; we are the big gun.

Commenting further on the dominance of Israel’s Likud Party over American
politics, Cole continues: "It should be admitted that the American Likud
could not make US policy on its own. Its members had to make convincing
arguments to Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush himself. But they were able to make those
arguments, by distorting intelligence, channeling Ahmad Chalabi junk, and
presenting Big Ideas to men above them that signally lacked such ideas. (Like
the idea that the road to peace in Jerusalem ran through Baghdad. Ha!)"

Cole’s observations confirm the source of Muslim terrorism: "The Likud
policies of reversing Oslo and stealing people’s land and making their lives
hell has produced enormous amounts of terrorism against Israel, and the
Likudniks have cleverly turned that to their political advantage. Aggression and
annexation is necessary, they argue, because there is terrorism. Some of them
now openly speak of ethnically cleansing the Palestinians, using the same
argument. But when the Oslo peace process looked like it would go somewhere,
terrorism tapered off (it did not end, but then peace had not been achieved).

The drawback for the US in all this is that US government backing for Sharon's
odious policies makes it hated in the Muslim world. (Note that Muslims who
oppose Israeli aggression are often tagged as ‘terrorists’ by the US
government, but rightwing Jews who go to Palestine to colonize it, walking
around with Uzi machine guns and sometimes shooting down civilians, are not
‘terrorists.’) This lack of balance is one big reason that Bin Laden
and al-Zawahiri hit the US on September 11. [Emphasis added.] In fact,
Bin Laden wanted to move up the operation to punish the US for supporting
Sharon's crackdown on the Second Intifada."

The FBI investigation now rapidly disappearing from the American media’s
radar screen seems as some kind of fluke. Considering the extensive control
Israel maintains over virtually all branches of American government through
AIPAC and their Pentagon and White House neocon plants, why would an espionage
agenda even be necessary?

Again Cole: "So, passing a few confidential documents over is a minor
affair. Pro-Likud intellectuals established networks linking Defense and the
national security advisers of Vice President Dick Cheney, gaining enormous
influence over policy by cherry-picking and distorting intelligence so as to
make a case for war on Saddam Hussein. And their ulterior motive was to remove
the most powerful Arab military from the scene, not because it was an active
threat to Israel (it wasn't) but because it was a possible deterrent to Likud
plans for aggressive expansion (at the least, they want half of the West Bank,
permanently)."

Here’s why AIPAC is an extremely dangerous and subversive group as offered
by Cole: "All this can happen because there is a vacuum in US political
discourse. A handful of special interests in the United States virtually dictate
congressional policy on some issues. With regard to the Arab-Israeli conflict,
the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and a few allies have succeeded in
imposing complete censorship on both houses of Congress. No senator or congress
member dares make a speech on the floor of his or her institution critical of
Israeli policy, even though the Israeli government often violates international
law and UN Security Council resolutions (it would violate more such resolutions,
except that the resolutions never got passed because only one NSC member, the
US, routinely vetoes them on behalf of Tel Aviv.) As the Labor Party in Israel
has been eclipsed by the Likud coalition, which includes many proto-fascist
groups, this subservience has yoked Washington to foreign politicians who
privately favor ethnic cleansing and/or agressive warfare for the purpose of
annexing the territory of neighbors. On the rare occasion when a brave member of
congress dares stand up to this unrelenting AIPAC tyranny, that person is
targeted for unelection in the next congressional campaign, with big money
directed by AIPAC and/or its analogues into the coffers of the senator or
congressman's opponent. Over and over again, AIPAC has shaped the US congress in
this way, so successfully that no one even dares speak out any more."

Cole points out that this is precisely the type of tyrannical takeover of
America our Founding Fathers feared. This is precisely what President George
Washington warned US about advising strongly to avoid entangling alliances. Our
sinful alliance with tiny Israel, run by mass murderers and war-mongers, has
infested virtually all levels of our own government. And they are a long way
from being through with US, but we may be only a few short years away from
becoming a brutal dictatorship forged from the terrorism created by tiny
Israel’s Likud Party.

AIPAC picks, elects and stacks both houses of our Congress. AIPAC has
eliminated the Democratic Party’s former frontrunner. AIPAC accomplishes this
by targeting politicians, and magnifying their small numbers by enlisting the
support of a much greater number of Americans: the Christian Zionists. Cole
explains this magnification of power employing non-Jews: "AIPAC is not all
that rich or powerful, but politics in the US is often evenly divided between
Democrats and Republicans. Because many races are very close, any little extra
support can help change the outcome. AIPAC can provide that little bit.
Moreover, most Americans couldn't care less about the Middle East or its
intractable problems, whereas the staffers at AIPAC are fanatics.
[Emphasis added.]

If some congressman from southern Indiana knows he can pick up even a few
thousand dollars and some good will from AIPAC, he may as well, since his
constituents don't care anyway. That there is no countervailing force to AIPAC
allows it to be effective. (That is one reason that pro-Likud American activists
often express concern about the rise of the Muslim-American community and the
possibility that it may develop an effective lobby.) Moreover, AIPAC leverages
its power by an alliance with the Christian Right, which has adopted a bizarre
ideology of "Christian Zionism." It holds that the sooner the
Palestinians are ethnically cleansed, the sooner Christ will come back. Without
millions of these Christian Zionist allies, AIPAC would be much less influential
and effective." [Emphasis added.]

The etremely dangerous power that AIPAC, a lobby of about 60,000,
"representing" five to six million Jews in Israel, wields over the
government and military of the United States, a nation of almost 300 million,
can easily lead to a totally nuclear World War III. Terrorism is a tactic
employed by the weak and oppressed. It is a tool that can be used to
symbolically retaliate against a repressive government that is enslaving a
people. But it can also be used to turn the people of a repressive nation
against its own government. When the people of such a repressive nation realize
that it is their own government that is responsible for generating such
terrorism from external sources, the perpetrators hope that internal political
pressure will lead to the abolition of that nation’s oppressive policies. This
is the motivation of the PLO in conducting terroristic suicide bus and public
place bombings against Israel.

The stubborn pigheadedness of the Bush administration and its Zionist PNAC
cabal that engineered the war against Iraq in accordance with the "Clean
Break" policy, is what must now be propped up and supported by a series of
increasingly draconian Patriot Acts. Terrorism against the United States will
grow, and will grow more seriously. During American expansionism characterized
as "the wild West," the Colt "Peacemaker" revolver was
termed "The Equalizer." In the "wild" Mid East, terrorism is
just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to oppressed Muslims and Palestinians.
The new "equalizer" is nuclear weaponry. The threat to America is that
nuclear devices will be employed shortly in terrorist acts against the United
States.

This is precisely why we are becoming a police state. Bush had it right when
he said that we couldn’t win a war against terrorism. But we can take a
positive approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. We can unauthorize AIPAC
to lobby and take away its tax-exempt status. We can recognize that both of our
major political parties are totally under the thumb of a serious foreign
entanglement, and one that not only dictates down to US, but is also impervious
to the death, harm and destruction that the weak and oppressed will use against
US as the actions of our government blur the distinction between a just and
honest people and our increasingly savage and corrupt government.

This is the major issue in this election. Either our government is with US,
or with Israel. Which way is it Mr. Bush? Which way is it Mr. Kerry? Is there a
third party that will step forward and save our nation? Obviously, saving US
from World War III and nuclear attack aren’t of any importance to either major
political party. We are, instead, focusing on another unjust war we lost thirty
years ago. But just like the Germans after World War I, we cannot accept either
that the war is over, or the fact that we lost it. The blessed opportunity of a
"peaceful revolution" by a truly honest and open election is rapidly
slipping away, and may well be replaced by a nuclear terrorist attack launching
World War III. It will be the first major rebellion against "The Evil
Empire," a rebellion against the Emperor of the Dark Side. Star Wars is US,
and the great clock of history is about to strike the hour.

President Bush told Texas evangelist James Robinson that
"I feel like God wants me to run for President. (godschneerson)
I can't explain it, but I sense my country is going to need me. Something
is going to happen . . . I know it won't be easy on me or my family, but
God wants me to do it."

With 49.3% of New York City residents in a recent Zogby
poll believing that some people in our government knew of the 911 attack
in advance and allowed it to happen, the President as right-wing
evangelical prophet is under siege in his Madison Square Garden bunker.
Convention watchers should take careful note of the theocratic nationalist
rhetoric at the Republican convention this week.

When was the last time a Western nation had a leader so
obsessed with God and claiming God was on our side?

If you answered Adolph Hitler and Nazi Germany, you're
correct. Nothing can be more misleading than to categorize Hitler as a
barbaric pagan or Godless totalitarian, like Stalin.

Both Bush and Hitler believe that they were chosen by God
to lead their nations. With Hitler boldly proclaiming, before launching
his doctrine of preventive war against all of Europe, that "I would
like to thank Providence and the Almighty for choosing me of all people to
be allowed to wage this battle for Germany."

"I follow the path assigned to me by Providence with
the instinctive sureness of a sleepwalker," Hitler said.

Hitler stated in February 1940, "But there is
something else I believe, and that is that there is a God. . . . And this
God again has blessed our efforts during the past 13 years." After
the Iraqi invasion, Bush announced, "God told me to strike at al
Qaeda and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam,
which I did . . . ." Neither the similarity between Hitler and Bush's
religious rhetoric nor the fact that the current President's grandfather
was called "Hitler's Angel" by the New York Tribune for his
financing of the Fuher's rise to power is lost on Europeans.

Pat Robertson called Bush "a prophet" and Ralph
Reed claimed, after the 9/11 attack, God picked
the President because "he knew George Bush had the ability to lead in
this compelling way." Hitler told the German people in March 1936,
"Providence withdrew its protection and our people fell, fell as
scarcely any other people heretofore. In this deep misery we again learn
to pray. . . . The mercy of the Lord slowly returns to us again. And in
this hour we sink to our knees and beseech our almighty God that he may
bless us, that He may give us the strength to carry on the struggle for
the freedom, the future, the honor, and the peace of our people. So help
us God."

Ten years
passed. On the one hand, world-wide terror increased. On the other hand, the
world continued to progress towards the time of the Rebbe

Mendel
Menachem Schneerson's
revelation. Somehow,
the Rebbearranged
it so that Bush’s
son would become president too and complete what his father left unfinished.

By Rabbi
Naftali Estulin

At the beginning of Hitler's crusade on April 12, 1922,
he spelled out his version of the warmongering Jesus: "My feeling as
a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter." Randall
Balmer in The Nation, noted that "Bush's God is the eye-for-an-eye
God of the Hebrew prophets and the Book of Revelation, the God of
vengeance and retribution."

Bush's god is that
Tetragrammaton of Talmud Bavli of the rabad chabad

As Bush has invoked the cross of Jesus to simultaneously
attack the Islamic and Arab world, Hitler also saw the value of exalting
the cross while waging endless war: "To be sure, our Christian Cross
should be the most exalted symbol of the struggle against the
Jewish-Marxist-Bolshevik spirit."

Like Bush-ites, Hitler was fond of invoking the Ten
Commandments as the foundation of Nazi Germany: "The Ten Commandments
are a code of living to which there's no refutation. These precepts
correspond to irrefragable needs of the human soul."

Not the case since the Coup.....Seven Universal
Noahide Laws of Satan

But if you ever wondered where Bush got his idea for
so-called "faith-based initiatives" you need only consult
Hitler's January 30, 1939 speech to the Reichstag. The Fuhrer begins,
"Amongst the accusations which are directed against Germany in the
so-called democracy is the charge that the National Socialist State is
hostile to religion."

The same Lubavitchers hired Hitler to create
the "TERROR" for their flesh zion. ROOT them out NOW AMERICA !

Hitler goes on to document how much "public monies
derived from taxation through the organs of the State have been placed at
the disposal of both churches [Protestant and Catholic]." Hitler gave
nearly 1.8 billion Reichsmarks between 1933-1938 directly to the Christian
churches. In 1938 alone, he bragged that the Nazis gave half a billion
Reichsmarks from the national government and an additional 92 million
Reichsmarks from the Nazi-controlled German states and parish
associations.

No Child left behind....from
satan

Hitler made the intent of his faith-based initiative
clear when he noted, "With a tenth of our budget for religion, we
would thus have a Church devoted to the State and of unshakable loyalty. .
. . the little sects, which receive only a few hundred thousand marks, are
devoted to us body and soul."

Bush's assertion that "I trust God speaks through
me. Without that, I couldn't do my job" brings to mind God as a
dull-witted, cognitively-impaired nationalist unable to utter a simple
declarative sentence who spends his time preaching "blessed are the
warmongers and profit-makers."

So they go on....the AKT.......to
bring in the Kohen Gadol, Johan Peretz Kohen

Bob Fitrakis is the Editor of the Free Press (freepress.org),
a political science professor, attorney and co-author with Harvey
Wasserman of George W. Bush vs. the Superpower of Peace.

http://www.freepress.org/columns/display/3/2004/942

Talk about the
Most favored "Chosen" shemgods....off with your heads......

'Hate Crime' Law Passes
Senate - On To HouseGreivous Constitutional Destruction
The End Of Free Speech Nears
By Ted Twietmeyer

tedtw@frontiernet.net
9-3-4

Recently, within a defense bill on Capitol Hill another
bill was hidden. This hidden attachment pertains to so-called "hate
crimes." The bill is Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act (S. 933),
a pro-homosexual hate crimes bill.

The Defense bill with the 'hate crime' attachment passed
the senate 65 to 33, and will now be going to the house.

What does this mean?

Simply put, it permits the GOVERNMENT to decide what is a
hate crime. The measure also extends into our freedom of speech.

EVERYONE should be aware, that almost anything you do or
say can be construed as a 'hate crime'

by someone, somewhere if that person or group chooses to
silence the views and thoughts you

are discussing.

We've already seen the Patriot Act abused during the RNC,
as over 1000 Americans have been arrested merely for expressing their
rights of free speech and dissent as AMERICANS.

Now, if the DOJ couples this new bill with the Patriot
Act, we are in grave trouble. Remember that most all acts are named after
WHO THE 'ACT' IS AGAINST:

Riot Act - Against riots in public

RICO Act - Racketeering and organized crime

Patriot Act - Against patriots, and those that refuse to
believe it you can read the act online at

sites like infowars.com.

An example of a "hate crime" under this new
legislation would be to simply mention the word homosexual in any
church...in any CHURCH...and that could be grounds to be arrested.

Everyone who knows about this act of madness which has NO
BOUNDS OF INTERPRETATION UNDER THE LAW MUST CALL THEIR CONGRESSMAN

IMMEDIATELY. Neo-con lord bush will sign it, as he signs
EVERY law that helps to promote a police

state.

ONCE THIS PANDORAS BOX IS OPENED TO CANCEL YOUR RIGHT TO
FREE SPEECH, THERE

WILL BE NO CLOSING IT.

REMEMBER THAT IF YOU CHOOSE NOT TO ACT AND BE A COUCH
PATRIOT.

Just in the "Nick" of time

___

The
Coming Global "Purim" of the shemgods and their false Messiah,
Moshiach ben Satan

In this week’s Torah portion we read
about the rape and abduction of Dina and the consequences suffered by the
people of Shekhem. Rabbi Y. Nachshoni’s commen-tary (Studies in the Weekly
Portions),

Fabrication of satan's
"Illuminated "Masters"

can illuminate
for us some events at home and around the world and the psychological
reasons behind them. “And it came to pass on the third day, when they
were sore (from the circumci-sion), that the two sons of Ya’acov, Shimon and
Levi, Dina’s brothers, took each man his sword, and came upon the city
(Shekhem) with confidence, and slew all the males”. (1) Why should all
of society be punished for one man’s wrongdoing? Wasn’t the House of
Ya’acov brought up as a house of mercy and compassion? What did the people
of Shekhem do to deserve the death penalty?Let us analyze this story to
understand what happened to cause such an abrupt and fatal ending.

Satanic Deception

Malbim on our passage gives three
reasons justifying Shimon and Levi’s action.a) The community was jealous of
Ya’acov’s wealth and planned to kill him and his family in order to
acquire their wealth. (The action was defensive.)

preeminent strikes

b) Shekhem (the leader) committed a publicized abduction and rape of Dina. The
people of Shekhem completely disregarded what he did and did not punish him.
(The action was offensive.)

see george W. Bushkevik and
the Chabad Lubavitch

c) The community actually defended the perpetrators when Yaacov’s sons de-manded
Dina’s Return. (The action was both defensive and offensive.)

Rambam gives a halakhik explanation for
what happened to the people of Shekhem. The world is divided in to two
separate populaces, the Jews and B’nei Noach, the rest of the
world.

the shemgods and their
obedient prosleytes the shabbos goy Noahides and - the "rest' of
the world, or the opposition

The B’nei Noach have only seven
obligatory commandments, the Noahide
Laws, compared to
613 commandments that the Jews have to observe. Al-though the Noahide
Laws consist of
only seven commandments, they are of such
significance that any violation of them
is punishable by death.

(2)After Shekhem kidnapped Dina,
according to the Noahide Laws,
he was liable for the death penalty. The rest of his community deserved
the same punishment due to the fact that they had no judicial system.
These offenses are two separate command-ments of the Noahide
Laws.

the "terror" of the shems will
continue until the goyim obey

Ramban disagrees with Rambam.

Figures

The judiciary systems were meant for
settling business disputes. Furthermore, the community of Shekhem could
not have been liable for death for this reason. Punishment is only meted
out for a prohibitory com-mandment (lo ta’aseh) and not for a positive
commandment (‘aseh). Ramban states that they deserved death for a
different reason. Their sin was idol worship.

and they say Jesus the Christ
is an Idol

(3)Chatam Sofer points out that a
Ben Noach who transgresses a positive command-ment, he deserves the death
penalty even though he is not executed for it. (4) His interpretation of
Rambam is, that since the people of Shekhem deserved to die, Shimon and
Levi were not held accountable for the murders.

after all they were goyim
animals

Chemdat Yisrael returns us to the
original explanation. Rambam clearly states that the community of Shekhem
were not just killed. Shimon and Levi had a legal obliga-tion to administer
the death penalty:

So satan's Kohen Gadol will have the
shemgod legal "Obligation" to kill the Christ Believers

It is very good to have a society
with laws, but if there
is no one to enforce
them, the laws
themselves are worthless. Even though, theoretically, they accepted upon
themselves the Noahide Laws,
because of their failure to appoint anyone to enforce
them, they all, as a community, deserved the death penalty.

"AMARAKA" accepted the Law
by House Joint Resolution 104, Public Law 102-14, 102nd congress of the United
States, 1991 signed by Bushkevik I

As we see in the Talmud,
establishing a judicial system and ways to enforce
it are part of the same commandment. (5) Already Rambam observed: “A person
is created such that he is drawn—in his per-sonality traits and his
actions—after is fellows and associates.” (6) In the words of
modern psychologists:“The individual lives in a social setting. From his
first breath he is in contact with other individuals. For a while he is
dependent on them for the preservation of
his life. Later he is dependent upon them for the molding of his personality
and character - for their ways become his ways and their life his. As we
see the individual taking on the ways of his fellows and his eventual
conforming to their preferences, we might be able to account for what we
see in terms of laws
and principles of individual psychology. The group does affect the
behavior of the individual. The society functions as an organized entity.
As it does so, it has its
way with the individual. It teaches him, sets standards for him, defines the
limits within which his behavior must be contained. But at a more general
level of analysis it does this also through the definition and
enforcement of social roles. The group, in order to survive and function,
defines and enforces standards of proper and improper behavior.” (7)
Last year’s riots in Los Angeles is one such example. The riots began as a
result of corruption in the judicial system and continued because of the
lack of law enforce-ment.
Another example is the recent lynch in Ramallah. As a rule, murder in any so-ciety
is not tolerated and looked down upon with disgust. We see today, in various instances
around the world, what are the psychological effects when no judiciary system
is enforced. A corrupt enforcement agency reinforces an even more corrupt society.
It leads to a total disregard for the establishment and whatever is identified with
it.
In memory of all the soldiers who were killed for Clal Yisrael.
SOURCES
1. Genesis 34:25
2. Hilkhot Melakhim 9:14
3. Genesis 35:2
4. Chatam Sofer, Responsa VI 14
5. Tractate Sanhedrin 56
6. Hilkhot De’ot 6,1
6. Psychology, A Scientific Study of Man, Fillmore H. Sanford, 531-536

Either
become Obedient goyim Palestinian Noahides of the shemgods....or perish

http://www.7for70.com/9_hr.html

CHABAD
ADVERTISES THE SEVEN NOAHIDE
COMMANDMENTS TO THE PALESTINIANS

A
new campaign has been begun by Chassidai Chabad to convince the Palestinians
to observe the seven Noahide
Commandments. A special department called "Mateh Sheva Mitzvot Bne
Noach" printed over a half a million (!) prospects in Arabic to be
distributed to Palestinian and Israeli Arabs.

This
campaign is part of the general Chabad campaign to convince all gentiles, i.e.
the entire world, to observe these Seven Commandments and for this purpose a
website www .7for70 has been established. The organizers explained that
7for70 refers to 7 commandments for 70 nations and also to the almost
mythological number 770, the address of the home of the Lubavitcher Rebbe in
Brooklyn.

Like
Flight 77 WTC-Pentegon

Rabbi
Boaz Kali one of the most active in the field, explained the goal is to follow
the directives of the Lubavitcher Rebbe to materialize the words of the Rambam
(Maimonides, the greatest of Jewish Codifiers) who determined that the
obligation of the Jewish people is "To convince the entire world to
observe the commandments given to Noah and his offspring".

Kali
explained that the answer to the intifada 'Al Aksa' is not
only with guns but also through education.

The
Arabs of G'sar A'zrka,
Tirat Shchem and Chevron were surprised this week to see billboards on most of
their roads and highways advertising the observance of the Seven Noahide
Commandments. On the signs appears a large picture of the Lubavitcher Rebbe
under the title in Arabic "The World is Not a Jungle" followed by a
list of the commandments. The Chassidim behind this campaign are
convinced that these posters will help influence the Arab masses to do G-d's
will as it appears in the Torah. (Maariv 27/3/2 and the local newspapers 'Zman
HaSharon" and "Zman HaKiryot".)

___

Satan
saith accept my yoke or die

http://sites.huji.ac.il/melton/sokolow.html

Jewish law teaches that punishment for violating one of the
seven Noahide Laws includes death
by decapitation:
"One additional element of greater severity is that violation of any one
of the seven laws subjects the Noahide to capital punishment by decapitation"
(Talmud, tractate Sanhedrin
57a).

Resources on the Concept of Peace in Judaism - In Memory of
Yitzhak Rabin z'l

Lesson: "The Call for Peace" by Dr. Moshe Sokolow

From: The Call for Peace

What constitutes peace?

Assuming that the enemy declines the initial invitation to escape [battle]
but evinces interest in the second invitation - to make peace; How is the
surrender effected?

Jewish law teaches that punishment for violating one
of the seven Noahide Laws includes death
by decapitation: "One additional
element of greater severity is that violation of any one of the seven laws
subjects the Noahide to capital punishment by decapitation"
(Talmud, tractate Sanhedrin 57a).

Likewise, a city which surrenders, we do not make a [peace] treaty with
them until they renounce idolatry, destroy all their places [of worship], and
accept the remaining [six] Noahide
commandments.

or....

Jewish law teaches that punishment for violating one
of the seven Noahide Laws includes death
by decapitation: "One additional
element of greater severity is that violation of any one of the seven laws
subjects the Noahide to capital punishment by decapitation"
(Talmud, tractate Sanhedrin 57a).

The seven Noahide
commandments are, essentially, the laws which are fundamental to the operation
of any civilized society.

or....

Jewish law teaches that punishment for violating one
of the seven Noahide Laws includes death
by decapitation: "One additional
element of greater severity is that violation of any one of the seven laws
subjects the Noahide to capital punishment by decapitation"
(Talmud, tractate Sanhedrin 57a).

They are so important that a gentile who accepts them, voluntairly (i.e.,
not in time of war), attains the status of a resident alien, and is entitled
to permanent residence in Eretz Yisrael!

or....

Jewish law teaches that punishment for violating one
of the seven Noahide Laws includes death
by decapitation: "One additional
element of greater severity is that violation of any one of the seven laws
subjects the Noahide to capital punishment by decapitation"
(Talmud, tractate Sanhedrin 57a).

[NOTES: 1. Some authorities require the acceptance of ALL mitzvot
except eating. 2. The question of the "resident alien" status of the
Palestinian Arabs, and
of other non-Jews in Israel, today, is a most serious and sensitive one.]

And elsewhere (Hilkhot Melakhim 6:1), he elaborates:

If they surrender and accept the seven Noahide
commandements, not one of them may be killed.

or....

Jewish law teaches that punishment for violating one
of the seven Noahide Laws includes death
by decapitation: "One additional
element of greater severity is that violation of any one of the seven laws
subjects the Noahide to capital punishment by decapitation"
(Talmud, tractate Sanhedrin 57a).

To wit: "They shall be your tributaries and serve you" (Dt.
20:11). If they agree to pay tribute but refuse service; or if they accept the
service but refuse to pay tribute - we do not heed them until they consent to
both conditions.

The service to which they are subjected consists of being
humbled and degraded, showing no definace of Israel, and remaining
subdued in their presence. The tribute consists of their preparedness to
serve the [Israelite] king physically and monetarily, such as:
building walls, strengthening fortifications, constructing the king's
palace, etc.

or....

Jewish law teaches that punishment for violating one
of the seven Noahide Laws includes death
by decapitation: "One additional
element of greater severity is that violation of any one of the seven laws
subjects the Noahide to capital punishment by decapitation"
(Talmud, tractate Sanhedrin 57a).

Conclusion:

Without getting into all the halakhic complications [e.g., comparing
RAMBAM's position with that of the TOSAFOT (Gittin 46a, s.v.), etc.] there
seem to be three steps in the peace/surrender process leading, gradually, from
the cessation of hostilities to alien residency: (1) renunciation of idolatry;
(2) acceptance of the seven Noahide
comandments; and (3) paying tribute and remaining subservient to Israel.

or....

Jewish law teaches that punishment for violating one
of the seven Noahide Laws includes death
by decapitation: "One additional
element of greater severity is that violation of any one of the seven laws
subjects the Noahide to capital punishment by decapitation"
(Talmud, tractate Sanhedrin 57a).

Postscript to the Peace Process:

Two further reservations pertain to the peace process, one on each side.

On the Enemy Side, the suit for peace must be genuine, unanimous, and
accompanied by peaceful actions. As [our Great Sages] state in their
interpretations of Dt. 20:10-13:

Or...

Jewish law teaches that punishment for violating one
of the seven Noahide Laws includes death
by decapitation: "One additional
element of greater severity is that violation of any one of the seven laws
subjects the Noahide to capital punishment by decapitation"
(Talmud, tractate Sanhedrin 57a).

If they respond in peace - implies a verbal response. Therefore Scripture
adds: ...and they open up before you - in deed, and not just in word.

If they respond in peace - perhaps even only some of them? Therefore
Scripture adds: ...and they open up; it must be unanimous.

Or.......

Jewish law teaches that punishment for violating one
of the seven Noahide Laws includes death
by decapitation: "One additional
element of greater severity is that violation of any one of the seven laws
subjects the Noahide to capital punishment by decapitation"
(Talmud, tractate Sanhedrin 57a).

If it declines to make peace and wages war against you and you besiege it -
God will turn it over to you. If you call to it in peace and do everything
you're supposed to do, and still they decline - God will eventually turn it
over to you.

their god will kill anyone who opposes
their godhood status

On Israel's Side, too, the peaceful conclusion of hostilities carries a
further moral responsibility:

After they make peace and accept the seven Noahide
commandements, it is forbidden to either lie to them or trick them in the
conclusion of a treaty.

hahhahahahahahha
kol nidre

Get
on the back of the bus you animal arabs, saith the shemgods

Now
people you may see why the WTC and the Pentegon destruction had to
occur........the "Beginning of sorrows

remember.....

Al Gore Letter 10
01-Nov-2000 Education Day USA

[Upon seizing
the reins of government, the new
Noachide leaders will move quickly to implement a full agenda of reform.
... Full support will be
given to Israeli forces to reinvade PLO-controlled areas, with military
assistance offered where necessary.Jewish courts ... will be granted
full legal sovereignty over Jewish citizens within each country,
who will no longer be subject to
the authority of gentile courts.

The pre-existing Noachide judges
and courts will replace the existing court system of each country, and
the legal code will be drastically rewritten to conform to halacha....
.... And law and order will be fully restored through the
establishment of internal security measures, again in accordance with
Torah law. — Committee for Israeli Victory]

Yep the last
Indignation is here, now. Where are you in faith of Jesus the Lord Almighty?

When Jews are murdered by Arab terrorists, (shemgod
opposers) as more than 500 have since the
1993 Oslo betrayal of Judaism, it is improper for rabbis, whether elected or
not, to repeatedly call upon Jews to exercise self-restraint after a
terrorist attack. Such rabbis unwittingly incite Arabs
to murder more Jews.

When Arabs
violate the Seven Noahide Laws by
murdering Jews, such murders
constitute a Hillul HaShem - a desecration of God’s Name.

It is only natural for Jews to call for vengeance,(eye
for an eye of their god, tetragrammaton) and the failure of the
Government to revenge Jewish bloodshed cannot be dehumanize many Jews in the
process of encouraging further Arab terrorism.

On the other hand, when the Government, on rare occasions, does exact
vengeance by killing a prominent Arab terrorist, such as Massoud Iyyad on
February 13, the Government triggers the murder of many more Jews, as
happened the day following Iyyad’s killing.

The only way to minimize Jewish bloodshed is for the Government to order
the
IDF to destroy Arafat’s army, and in the shortest possible time.

Upon seizing
the reins of government, the new
Noachide leaders will move quickly to implement a full agenda of reform.
... Full support will be given to
Israeli forces to reinvade PLO-controlled areas, with military assistance
offered where necessary.Jewish
courts ... will be granted full legal sovereignty over Jewish citizens within
each country, who will no
longer be subject to the authority of gentile courts.

If the
Government had any backbone, let alone any faith in God, it would be guided
by these words of King David:: “I have pursued mine enemies and overtaken
them. Neither did I turn back till they were consumed. I have smitten them
through. So that they are not able to rise .” (Psalm 16:38-39).

Judeo-Zionist prop

Returning to our rabbis, instead of calling upon Jews to exercise
self-restraint, they should collectively demonstrate by the hundreds and
thousands against the Government for exercising self-restraint!

Notwithstanding the good our rabbis otherwise perform, they - with notable
exceptions – are very much responsible for Israel’s plight.

Thus the pitting of Ishmael against the
apostate demigod Judeo-Churchinsanist continues

___

1000

1000

1000

young, men and women
have been slain in the wars of the shemgods, and "Amaraka" sleepeth

1000

1000

in
the name..aha..of aha...Jaysoooooose...so hep me gawd..hallelujah

the
shemgods.........

ba'al shem Encyclopædia
Britannica Article

also spelled Baalshem, or Balshem (Hebrew:
“master of the name”), plural Ba'ale Shem, Baaleshem, or
Baleshem, in Judaism, title bestowed upon men who reputedly worked
wonders and effected cures through secret knowledge of the ineffable names of
God. Benjamin ben Zerah (11th century) was one of several Jewish poets to
employ the mystical names of God in his works, thereby demonstrating a belief
in the efficacy of the holy name long before certain rabbis and Kabbalists
(followers…

This
shemgod this Illuminated tetragrammaton who has No Son is Not the Father of
the Only Begotten Son, the Savior....Jesus the Lord of Lords, King of Kings

The Jewish Encyclopedia 1901, p. 118:

The quadriliteral name of G-d, yod/hay/vav/hay, which is thus referred to in
Josephus, in the Church Fathers, in the magic papyri, and in the Palestinian
Talmud {Yoma 40a below}, whence it has passed into the modern languages. Other
designations for this name, such as "HaShem," "Shem
ha-Meforash," and "Shem
ha-Meyuhad," have frequently been discussed by recent scholars {see
bibliography in Blau, "Altjudisches Zauberwesen," p. 128, note 1, and,
on the terms, pp. 123-128}.

The term "Tetragrammaton"
apparently arose in contradistinction to the divine names containing
respectively twelve and forty-two letters and formed likewise from the letters
Y,H,W,H {ib. pp. 137-146}; for only thus is the designation intelligible, since
Adonai likewise has four letters in Hebrew.

According to Dalman {l.c. pp. 66 et seq.}, the Rabbis forbade the utterance of
the Tetragrammaton, to
guard against desecration of the Sacred Name; but such an ordinance could not
have been effectual unless it had met with popular approval. The reasons
assigned by Lagarde {"Psalterium Hieronymi," p. 155} and Halevy
{"Recherches Bibliques," i. 65 et seq.} are untenable, and are refuted
by Jacob {l.e. pp. 172, 174}, who believes that the Divine Name was not
pronounced lest it should be desecrated by the heathen. The true name of G-d was
uttered only during worship in the Temple, in which the people were alone; and
in the course of the services on the Day of Atonement the high
priest pronounced the Sacred Name ten times {Tosefl, Yoma, ii. 2; Yoma
39b}. This was done as late as the last years of the Temple {Yer. Yoma 40a, 67}.
If such was the purpose, the means were ineffectual, since the pronunciation of
the Tetragrammaton was
known not only in Jewish, but also in non-Jewish circles centuries after the
destruction of the Temple, as is clear from the interdictions against uttering
it {Sanh. x. 1; Tosef., Sanh. xii. 9; Sifre Zuta, in Yalk., Gen. 711; 'Ab. Zarah
18a; Midr. Teh. to Ps. xci., end}.

Raba, a Babylonian amora who flourished about 350, wished to make the
pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton
known publicly {Kid. 71b}; and a contemporary Palestinian scholar states that
the Samaritans uttered it in taking oaths {Yer. Sanh. 28b}. The members of the
Babylonian academy probably knew the pronunciation as late as 1000 C.E. {Blau,
l.c. pp. 132 et seq., 138 et seq.}. The physicians, who were half magicians,
made special efforts to learn this name, which was believed to possess marvelous
powers {of healing, etc.; Yer. Yoma 40a, below}. The cures, or the exorcisms, of
demons in the name of Jesus which are mentioned in the New Testament and the
Talmud {see Exorcism} imply that Jesus was regarded as a god
and that his name was considered as efficacious as the Tetragrammaton
itself, for which it was even substituted.

It was in connection with magic that the Tetragrammaton
was introduced into the magic papyri and, in all probability, into the
writings of the Church Fathers, these two sources
containing the following forms, written in Greek letters: (1) "Iaoouee,"
"iaoue," "Iabe"; (2) "Iao," "Iaho,"
"Iae"; (3) "Aia"; (4) "Ia." It is evident that (1)
represents yod/hay/vav/hay, (2) yod/hay/vav, (3) aleph/hay/yod/hay, and (4) yod/hay.
The three forms quoted under (1) are merely three ways of writing the same word,
though "Iabe" is designated as the Samaritan pronunciation. There are
external and internal grounds for this assumption; for the very agreement of the
Jewish, Christian, heathen, and Gnostic statements proves that they undoubtedly
give the actual pronunciation {Stade's "Zeitschrift," iii. 298; Dalman,
l.c. p. 41; Deissmann, "Bibelstudien," pp. 1-20; Blau, l.c. p. 133}
The "mystic quadriliteral name" {Clement, "Stromata," ed.
Dindorf, iii. 25, 27} was well known to the Gnostics,
as is shown by the fact that the third of the eight eons of one of their systems
of creation was called "the unpronounced," the fourth "the
invisible," and the seventh "the unnamed," terms which are merely
designations of the Tetragrammaton
{Blau, l.c. p. 127}.

Even the Palestinian Jews had inscribed the letters of the Name on amulets {Shab.
115b; Blau, l.c. pp. 93-96}; and, in view of the frequency with which the
appellations of foreign deities were employed in magic,
it was but natural that heathen magicians should show an especial preference for
this "great and holy name," knowing its pronunciation as they knew the
names of their own deities. It thus becomes possible to determine with a fair
degree of certainty the historical pronunciation of the Tetragrammaton,
the results agreeing with the statement of Ex. iii. 14, in which YHWH terms
Himself aleph/hay/yod/hay, "I will be," a
phrase which is immediately preceded by the fuller term "I will be that I
will be," or, as in the English versions, "I am" and "I am
that I am."

NOT The IAM Christ

The name yod/hay/vav/hay is accordingly derived from the root hay/vav/hay{= hay/yod/hay},
and is regarded as an imperfect. This passage is decisive for the pronunciation
"Yahweh"; for the etymology was undoubtedly based on the known word.
The oldest exegetes, such as Onkelos, and the Targumim of Jerusalem and
pseudo-Jonathan regard "Ehyeh" and "Ehyeh asher Ehyeh" as
the name of the Divinity, and accept the etymology of "hayah" =
"to be" {comp. Samuel b. Meir, commentary on Ex. iii.14}.

Modern critics, some of whom, after the lapse of centuries, correct the Hebrew
texts without regard to the entire change of point of view and mode of thought,
are dissatisfied with this etymology; and their various hypotheses have resulted
in offering the following definitions: (1) he who calls into being, or he who
gives promises; (2) the creator of life; (3) he who makes events, or history;
(4) the falling one, the feller, i.e., the storm-g-d who
hurls the lightning; (5) he who sends down the rain {W. R. Smith,
"The Old Testament," p. 123}; (6) the hurler; (7) the
destroyer; (8) the breather, the weather-g-d {Wellhausen}. All these
meanings are obtained by doing violence to the Hebrew text {Herzog-Hauck,
"Real-Encyc." viii. 536 et seq.}.

Attempts have also been made to explain the Divine Name yod/hay/vav/hay as
Hittite, Persian, Egyptian, and even as Greek; but these assumptions are not
absolutely set aside, since the name is at all events Semitic. The question
remains, however, whether it is Israelitish or was borrowed. Friedrich Delitzsch,
in discussing this question, asserts that the Semitic tribes from whom the
family of Hammurabi came, and who entered Babylon 2500
B.C., knew and worshiped the g-d Ya've, Ya'u {i.e., YHWH, Yahu; "Babel and
Bibel," 5th ed., i. 78 et seq.}; and Zimmern {in 468} reaches the
conclusion that "Yahu" or "YHWH" is found in Babylonian only
as the name of a foreign deity, a view with which Delitzsch agrees in his third
and final lecture on "Babel und Bibel" {pp. 39, 60, Stuttgart, 1905}.

Assyriologists are still divided on this point, however; and no definite
conclusions have as yet been reached {comp. the voluminous literature on
"Babel und Bibel"}.
The form corresponding to the Greek "Iao" does not occur alone in
Hebrew, but only as an element in such proper names as Jesaiah
{"Yesha'yahu"}, Zedekiah {"Zidkiyahu"}, and Jehonathan.
According to Delitzsch {"Wo Lag das Paradies?" 1881}, this form was
the original one, and was expanded into YHVH; but since names of divinities are
slow in disappearing, it would be strange if the primitive form had not been
retained once in the Bible. The elder Delitzsch thought that "Yahu"
was used independently as a name of G-d {Herzog-Plitt, "Real-Encyc."
vi. 503}; but, according to Kittel, "this could have been the case only in
the vernacular, since no trace of it is found in the literary language"
{Herzog-Hauck, "Real-Encyc." viii. 26, 533}.

All the critics have failed to perceive that the name "Yao" was
derived from the same source as "yaoue," namely, from Gnosticism
and magic, in which Jews, Christians, and heathen met. "Yahu"
was in fact used in magic, as is clear from the "Sefer Yezirah," which
shows many traces of Gnosticism; in the cosmology of this work the permutation
of the letters yod/hay/vav furnishes the instruments of the Creation.

With the Tetragrammaton
must be included the names of G-d formed of twelve, forty-two, and seventy-two
letters respectively, which are important factors in Jewish
mysticism {Kid. 71a et passim}. They have,
according to tradition, a magical effect; for mysticism and magic are everywhere
allied. These great names are closely akin to the long series of vowels
in the magic papyri, and are obtained by anagrammatic combinations of the
effective elements of the Tetragrammaton.
The simplest way of determining these three names is to form a
magic triangle, whose base is a single Tetragrammaton,
and its apex the Tetragrammaton
repeated thrice.

The four upper lines {12 + 11 + 10 + 9} give the names with forty-two letters;
and the entire figure represents the Divine Name of seventy-two letters {Bau,l.c.
pp. 144 et seq.}. According to the book of Bahir {ed. Amsterdam, 1651, fol. 7a},
the Sacred Name of twelve letters was a triple YHVH {Dalman, l.c. p. 39; Blau,
l.c. p. 144}.

In the earliest manuscripts of the Septuagint the Tetragrammaton
was given in Hebrew letters, which in Greek circles were suppose to be Greek and
were read ----{don't have the Greek font for these letters} {Field, "Origenis
Hexaplorum Quae Supersunt," i. 90, Oxford, 1875; Herzog-Hauck, l.c. viii.
530; Blau, l.e. p. 131}. See Also Adonai; Aquila; Gnosticism; Jehovah; Names of
G-d; Shem Ha-Meforash.

___

and of course the
god of the JAHOVA'S Witness

http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/JW/thename.html

Originally, the text of the Hebrew
Scriptures consisted of consonants without vowels. The divine name is
represented in the consonantal text by four consonants, the Tetragrammaton
(Greek for "the Four Lettered [Name]"), Y-H-W- H. In later Hebrew this
name is termed the Shem
HaMeforash, "the Explicit Name." Because of its extreme sanctity,
the Tetragrammaton is
never pronounced and, in fact, its exact pronunciation is unknown. In English,
however, it is popularly pronounced "Jehovah." "Jehovah" is
an anglicized misreading and not the correct pronunciation of the Hebrew Tetragrammaton
Y-H- W-H.

How does the Watchtower Society justify the
pronunciation "Jehovah," or how does it dare attempt to vocalize the
concealed Tetragrammaton itself? In discussing the divine name The
Watchtower asks the questions: "Is it true that 'Jehovah' is not God's
name and should not be in the Bible? Is it in the Bible that you use? Should it
be there? Do you use a personal name for God?"3
The great importance of the divine name for the Watchtower Society is to be seen
in that they have chosen for themselves the name "Jehovah's
Witnesses." They shun the use of "Lord" in place of what they
consider to be the divine name. The Watchtower states that ". . .
Lord is a title, not a personal name. . . ."4
The Watchtower Society criticizes what it calls the Jewish superstition of not
pronouncing the divine name.

and now just like Judeo-Churchizionity
they all share the god of the jews who has no ONLY Begotten SON the Savior Lord
Jesus the Christ

But their god the hashem...ha-shem,
tetragrammaton, will make himself a son, the son of perdition the false
messiah the Moshiach, whom they already call in his own name ben David...the
son of David, who is not the son of David, for Only Jesus has the Keys to
David, for HE Alone is the ROOT and the Offspring to the House of David, the
Creator who created David

Jn:8:33:

They answered him, We be Abraham's seed, and were never in bondage to any man: how sayest thou, Ye shall be made free?

Moshiach's
Hat

(A Poem To Ponder)

By Anonymous ben Kolonymous (who
else?)

'T was the night of the Geulah, -- And in
every single ShtiebelSounds of Torah could be heard -- Coming from
every kind of Yeedel.This one in English, -- Some in Hebrew, some in
Yiddish.Some saying P'shat -- And some saying a Chiddish.And up in Shamayim--The Aibishter decreed:"The time has come -- For My children to be
freed."Rouse the Moshiach
-- From his heavenly berth.Have him get in his chariot, -- And head down to
earth."The Moshiach
got dressed -- And with a heart full of glee,Went down to earth and entered -- the first
Shtiebel he did see."I am the Moshiach!
-- Hashem has heard
your plea!Your Geulah has
come! -- It's time to go free!"They all stopped their learning; --
This was quite a surprise.And they look at him carefully, -- With piercing
sharp eyes"He's not the Moshiach!"
-- Said one with a grin,"Just look at his hat, -- At the pinches and
brim!""That's right!" cried another -- With a
grimace and frown,"Whoever heard of Moshiach,
-- With a brim that's turned down?""Well," thought Moshiach,
-- "If this is the rule,I'll turn my brim up -- Before I go to the next
shul."So he walked right on over -- To the next shul in
town.Sure to be accepted, -- Since his brim was no
longer down."I'm, the Moshiach!"
he cried, -- As he began to enterBut the Jews wanted to know first -- If he was
Left Right or Center"Your clothes are so black!" -- They
cried out in fright."You can't be Moshiach--You're
much too far right!""If you want to be Moshiach,
-- You must be properly outfitted."So they replaced his black hat -- With a
Kippah that was knitted.Wearing his new Kippah, -- Moshiach
went out and said:"No difference to me -- What I wear on my
head."So he went to the next shul, -- For his
mission was dear.But he was getting frustrated -- With the Yidden
down hear."I'm the Moshiach!"
he cried, -- And they all stopped to stare,And a complete eerie stillness -- Filled up the
air."You're the Moshiach?!
-- Just imagine that!Whoever heard of Moshiach
-- Without a black hat?""But I do have a hat!" -- The Moshiach
then said.So he pulled it right out -- And plunked it down
on his head.Then the shul started laughing, -- And one said
" Where's your kop?You can't have Moshiach
-- With a brim that's turned up!If you want to be Moshiach
-- And be accepted in this town,"Put some pinches in your hat -- And turn
that brim down!"Moshiach
walked out and said: -- "I guess my time hasn't come.I'll just return -- To where I came from."So he went to his chariot, -- But as he
began to enter,All sorts of Jews appeared -- From the Left,
Right, and Center."Please wait - do not leave. -- It's all
their fault!" they said,And they pointed to each other -- And to what was
on each other's head.Moshiach
just looked sad -- And said, " You don't understand."And then started up his chariot -- To get out of
this land."Yes, it's very wonderful -- That you all
learn Torah,But you seem to have forgotten -- A crucial part
of our Mesorah."What does he mean?" -- "What's he
talking about?"And they all looked bewildered, -- And they all
began to shout.Moshiach
looked back and answered, -- "The first place to start,Is to shut up your mouths -- And open your
hearts."To each of you, certain Yidden -- Seem too
Frum or too Frei,But all Yidden are beloved -- in the Aibishter's
eye."And on his way up he shouted: -- " If you
want me to come,Try working a little harder -- On some Ahavat
Chinam!"

In 1995 I worked at Penrose St. Francis Hospital in Colorado
Springs, as an Occupational Physician for CCOM. We had many of the most
classified contracts in the Colorado Springs area, including Falcon Air Force
Base program employees, NORAD employees and classified ATMEL and Symbios Logic,
etc. EMP proof and Supercomputer chip classified manufacturers.

My director, Dr. George Swinder MD, was unavailable when the Military Expert
Forensic team was sent from Fort Carson to Oklahoma city and was just returning
to the Springs for exit examinations. This duty fell to me to perform exit
physicals and testing, for all five members of the team. One of the team
requested sperm testing, stating, "I want to have kids." I replied
sarcastically, " Go ahead, and have kids." He said, "No, you
don't understand." I said, "What do you mean?" "Doc, you
really don't know what happened at Oklahoma City do you?" I said,
"Well I heard that an ammonium nitrate bomb was reported to have exploded
killing 168 people."

He leaned forward, "See this rash on my arms, and chest,
and legs. Check me doc. I want all the blood tests and do a sperm test." I
was irritated now, "Now just a minute, I'm the doctor. If you don't come
clean and tell me what you were exposed to I can't possibly know what type of
tests to order. I was a biochemisty major, before going into medicine, and we do
toxicology testing when there is suspected industrial exposures that put an
employee in danger." He said, "You won't release my name or put this
in your report to my superiors, will you. I know about doctor-patient
confidentiality." "Well," I said, "I won't release your
name, but if affects others, I can't say I won't release the information to the
correct authorities."

"Doc, what happened in Oklahoma City wasn't caused by
ammonium nitrate bomb in the small truck they say was parked by the
building." "What are you saying?", I snapped back. "See this
rash, it was caused by radiation. We broke three radiation detectors there. See,
we were the same team that was sent to Riyad, Saudi Arabia and the bomb only
blew the windows into the building. We estimated the explosion was by our
calculations to be seven times more ammonium nitrate in that truck bomb. The
whole front of the building was sheared off doc in Oklahoma; cleanest controlled
detonation our munitions expert forensic team has seen ever. "
"What!!", I blurted. "Yeah, we were examining the building site
under Wakenhut armed guard, and told not to take any radioactive debris off the
site, or they were ordered to shoot on site to kill. All our bags were searched
and put through a detector, to make sure we didn't take any off site, or away
from the place where they burried and concrete capped all the debris, again
under armed Wakenhut guard." "You are telling me that the building was
exploded with a nuclear device?", I said. Shaking with a now very pale and
distant face, he grunted, "Yeah!". "Oh my God!, and how did this
happen?", I inquired.

"There were micronuclear bombs placed on support pillars
in the walls of the Federal Building, by special units of the ATF and FBI. They
were paged out not to enter the building on the morning of the detonation, and
the Federal Judge was warned to cancel court that day. We removed to undetonated
softball sized micronuclear bombs, and one C4 pineapple bomb, attached to the
pillars of the remaining building."

"I can't believe this story!", I blurted.
"Well, doc are you going to test me?", now sweating and shaking more
violently with anguish at these revelations. "I will order some more tests
of your blood cells that will rule out radiation effects on your blood cells and
bone marrow. As for the sperm count and morphology testing, you need to just go
to your primary family doctor's office, and I am sure he will do this for you.
Call me with the results, and I can interpret if there are any
abnormalities." "Ok" Looking relieved, "thanks for listening
to what happened to us doc."

This story dialogue was very disturbing, and I told my wife Michelle that night,
placed the information of the 'shelf', and hoped that he was lying, but I had an
aching feeling of serious doubt that continued until other events proved to me
he was right on with the details of the Oklahoma Murah Building detonation by
the NWO.

For almost three years since 9/11 independent
researchers have stockpiled individual smoking guns which prove that the
official version of events was not only a lie but operationally impossible.

However, no single smoking gun has yet been
forwarded to explain why air defenses categorically reversed Standard
Operating Procedure and failed to respond to hijacked jetliners.

Until now. More and more individuals are
looking at the facts and highlighting exercise drills that took place on the
morning of 9/11.

It is clear that at least five if not six
training exercises were in operation in the days leading up to and on the
morning of 9/11. This meant that NORAD radar screens showed as many as 22
hijacked airliners at the same time. NORAD had been briefed that this was part
of the exercise drill and therefore normal reactive procedure was forestalled
and delayed.

The large numbers of 'blips' on NORAD screens
that displayed both real and 'drill' hijacked planes explain why confused
press reports emerged hours after the attack stating that up to eight planes
had been hijacked. Click here
for that article.

The drill scenario also explains a comment
made by air traffic control personnel which was featured in a July 2004 BBC
television report. Click
here for that video clip and article. The controller is told that a
hijacked airliner is heading for New York and responds by saying, "is
this real world or an exercise?"

Alex Jones was one of the first to highlight
the wargames in his documentary film 'Masters of Terror', which was released
in August 2002. Click
here to watch a video clip. Alex explains why the Associated
Press later had to admit the fact that the CIA were running drills of
crashing planes into buildings on the morning of 9/11.

What were the drills called and what was
their nature?

1) OPERATION NORTHERN VIGILANCE: This was
planned months in advance of 9/11 and ensured that on the morning of 9/11, jet
fighters were removed from patrolling the US east coast and sent to Alaska and
Canada, therefore reducing the amount of fighter planes available to protect
the east coast.

2) BIOWARFARE EXERCISE TRIPOD II: Alex Jones
first reported on this back in May when Rudolph Giuliani let the details of it
slip in his testimony to the 9/11 Commission. FEMA arrived in New York on
September 10th to set up a command post located at Pier 29 under the auspices
of a 'biowarfare exercise scheduled for September 12. This explains why Tom
Kenney of FEMA's National Urban Search and Rescue Team, told
Dan Rather of CBS News that FEMA had arrived in New York on the night of
September 10th. This was originally dismissed as a slip of the tongue.
Giuliani was to use this post as a command post on 9/11 after he evacuated WTC
Building 7. As we reported
back in January, Giuliani knew when to leave WTC 7 because he got advanced
warning that the Trade Towers were about to collapse. "We were operating
out of there when we were told that the World Trade Center was gonna
collapse," Rudolph Giuliani told Peter Jennings of ABC News. How did
Giuliani know the towers were about to collapse when no steel building in
history had previously collapsed from fire damage?

3) OPERATION VIGILANT GUARDIAN: This exercise
simulated hijacked planes in the north eastern sector and started to coincide
with 9/11. Lt. Col. Dawne Deskins, NORAD unit's airborne control and warning
officer, was overseeing the exercise. At 8:40am she took a call from Boston
Center which said it had a hijacked airliner. Her first words, as quoted by
Newhouse News Service were, "It must be part of the exercise." This
is another example of how the numerous drills on the morning of 9/11
deliberately distracted NORAD so that the real hijacked planes couldn't be
intercepted in time.

4) OPERATION NORTHERN GUARDIAN: The details
of this exercise are still scant but it is considered to be part of Vigilant
Guardian, relating to simulating hijacked planes in the north eastern sector.

5) OPERATION VIGILANT WARRIOR: This was
referenced in Richard Clarke's book 'Against All Enemies'. It is thought to
have been the 'attack' component of the Vigilant Guardian exercise.

Another example of how air defenses were
purposefully kept preoccupied so they couldn't protect New York was reported
by this website in December of 2003. The Air National Guard's 177th
Fighter Wing, based at Atlantic City International Airport in Pomona, were
just eight minutes away from New York and could have intercepted both Flight
11 and Flight 175.

Under NORAD procedures that date to the Cold
War, two F-16 fighters from the 177th were parked around the clock on the
Atlantic City runway. Pilots waited in a nearby building, ready to scramble.

But on the morning of 9/11, the F-16's were
performing bombing runs over an empty stretch of the Pine Barrens near
Atlantic City after being decommissioned from their usual role of protecting
the skies of the east coast.

It was only after both trade towers were hit
that the two F-16s landed and were refitted with air-to-air missiles, then
sent aloft.

Now that we have established how NORAD were
confused, delayed and distracted by the numerous wargames, the next question
to ask is who if anyone was aware of which planes were 'real world' and which
planes were 'exercise'? The answer to this question will provide us with the
name of the individual who ran the operatonal execution of the 9/11 attack.

Dick Cheney.

Cheney was initially taken by the secret
service to an underground bunker in the White House called the Presidential
Emergency Operations Center.

From there, according
to CNN, Cheney directed the US government's response to the unfolding
attack.

Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta was
in the Presidential Emergency Operating Center with Vice President Cheney as
Flight 77 approached Washington, D.C. On
May 23, 2003 in front of the 9/11 Commission, Secretary Mineta testified:

Flight 77 of
770 the Moshiach Era

"During the time that the airplane was
coming in to the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to
the Vice President, "The plane is 50 miles out." "The plane is
30 miles out." And when it got down to "the plane is 10 miles
out," the young man also said to the Vice President, "Do the orders
still stand?" And the Vice President turned and whipped his neck around
and said, "Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to
the contrary?"

As the plane in question hit the Pentagon,
what else can we conclude but that the 'order' was not to shoot down
the aircraft and to let it find its target.

Mineta stated that he did not know what the
'order' was because he wasn't there when it was made.

Site R, a highly secure complex of buildings
inside Raven Rock Mountain near Blue Ridge Summit, Pa., close to the
Maryland-Pennsylvania state line and about seven miles north of Camp David, is
a 53-year-old facility conceived at the start of the Cold War as an alternate
command center in the event of nuclear war or an attack on Washington.

The bunker is built into a mountain hillside
and is virtually camouflaged to the naked eye. The location betrays itself by
the vast gaggle of satellites, microwave towers and antennae that festoon the
perimeter. Inside the facility there are computer filled caverns and
communication and tracking technology that would put a James Bond movie to
shame.

The entire facility is guarded by heavily
armed military police.

Within hours of 9/11 unfolding, five choppers
had landed on the facility's helipad and top officials such as Paul Wolfowitz
were ushered in to join Cheney in the command bunker.

Site R - also known as Raven Rock or the
Alternate Joint Communications Center is from where vice-President Dick Cheney
ran the aftermath of the 9/11 attack. Cheney's command superceded the orders
of the Pentagon, the FAA or the White House. He is the number one suspect in
the murder of nearly 3,000 innocent people.

In May of 2001, by presidential order, Cheney
was handed direct control of all wargame and drill operations. This meant he
was solely in charge of the overlapping NORAD drills and wargames on the
morning of 9/11, that prevented Standard Operating Procedure from being
implemented, and any of the hijacked planes being intercepted.

The smoking guns of 9/11 are no longer
disparate jigsaw pieces that serve to just raise more questions than they
answer. We now have a coherent and plausible explanation of how the events
unfolded, why there was no air defense response, and a prime suspect as to who
executed these actions. The facts fit this version of events.

The 9/11 truth movement has just taken a
giant leap towards dismantling the lies of September 11and finally offering
justice for those who lost their lives on that terrible day.

______

The Great "Shutup"
of the Era, short term era....of satan

2002

LOUVE DE TASMANIE

Australia's
First Mini Holocaust Trial At Sleepy Launceston, Tasmania

By Fredrick Toben

They used to burn fearless women
who spoke out and label them as witches. Are we again entering an age where this

is happening? Judge for yourself.

Retired English teacher,
grandmother, widow and fearless Christian, Mrs Olga Scully, 59, has taken on the
might of

the Executive Council of
Australian Jewry (ECAJ) by disputing in the Federal Court of Australia various
aspects of

conventional history. Not only
does she deny that there were homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz, and

anywhere else in then
Nazi-occupied Europe during World War Two, she also
vehemently lashes out at Talmudicteachings
contained in passages offensive to Christians. Having as a child
trekked from Soviet Russia to Germanyduring
the war, Mrs Scully is well-versed with the facts of the
Jewish-Bolshevik Holocaust that traditional historianscall
the 1917 Russian Revolution. She is doing everything in her power to spread the
truth of this historical event,

i.e. that most individuals
involved in engineering the 1917 social upheaval in Tsarist
Russia had a Jewish

background.Mrs
Scully's life‚s work began more than 30 years ago when she started to expose
historical lies taught in Tasmanianschools.
Ironically, it was only when her school principal husband died that the
president of the ECAJ, Mr JeremyJones,
in 1996 began hounding her into Australia‚s politically correct Human Rights
and Equal OpportunityCommission
(HREOC).Before this tribunal, where truth is no defence, Mrs Scully did not
while for long. She

walked out of the hearing because
she considered its procedures to be "immoral".

Matters progressed slowly but
when, in her absence, the HREOC commissioner handed down his findings, MrsScully was found in breach of the
Racial Discrimination Act. The material that she had been letter boxing and
sellingat her market stall,
was judged to be offensive to a few Jewish individuals in Hobart and Launceston.
She was askedto stop her
activity, and to sign an apology for causing hurt, pain and suffering to
Australia's Jewish

community. Mrs Scully ignored the
finding and now the matter is being re-litigated de novo‚ in the
Federal Court ofAustralia
before Justice Peter Hely. Mrs Scully is conducting her own defence.

Mrs Scully's interests range far
and wide, as is reflected in the material she distributes, from exposing the
money

trick to fluoridization and
related problems, from the evils of sex education in our schools, the problems
of

vaccination to the destruction of
our family farms .It is interesting that during the cross examination of a
witness, MrsScully could not
get a clear answer as to why a specific leaflet was complained of that dealt
with the teaching of

"licking the anus". It
appears that informing the community of such things was objected to by Mr Jones,
and hence

he appeared to condone such
matters.

Mrs Scully is not interested in
offending Jews as a group and she stated that she would name the group on herleaflet, be they Jews or Hottentots.
She claimed the current crop of snuff movies seems to be controlled by theRussian and Italian Jews.

Mrs Scully is a concerned citizen
with a mission: to do what responsible citizens and governments are not doing,
to

protest at outrages that are
offending our human delicacies, our social environment. She finds it imperative
that she

speak out against injustices
wherever they may occur. To remain silent is, for her, a sin. For example, she
reminded

the court thatTalmudic
influence is evident in the way the Jews in Israel are torturing Christian and
Muslim

Palestinians.
When cross-examined by Mrs Scully, witness
Mr Goldsteen, claimed it
was his Jewish mission to

imbue
the world with the seven Noahide Laws. Upon further examination, the
witness did not admit that those who

refuse to be thus ministered, should
be killed. According to Mrs Scully this is what is the duty of every
Jew who

takes this mission seriously.

At one point in the proceedings,
counsel for Mr Jones wished to have Mrs Scully's 111-page affidavit dismissed

almost in total on account of it
being "irrelevant". Counsel objected to Mrs Scully calling herself a
Holocaust

survivor. Justice Hely said that
this seemed to him relevant because Mrs Scully was merely putting "a
different

point-of-view" across. He
continued that this went to the heart of the issue he has to decide, whether Mrs
Scully

genuinely holds such a view. The
second matter the judge has to consider is whether Mrs Scully‚s statements are
on

a matter in the public interest
and for a genuine purpose. Counsel for Mr Jones claimed that Mrs Scully did not
have

a genuine subjective belief. The
story continues...

– 7 –

Conseils de révisions /
juin 2002

30 April 2002, Day Two:

The Holocaust Myth versus the
Jewish Conspiracy Myth?

By Fredrick Toben

Justice Peter Hely stressed he
had two concerns: 1. That Mrs Scully was not legally represented, and 2. That
she be

given a fair go. Mrs Scully
welcomed the opportunity that she be given "a fair go and argue my
point". Time was

spent on sorting out what
permissible evidence Mrs Scully relied on. When she submitted the David Cole
video

tape, but counsel objected
because, according to him, it does not go to the issue of the Holocaust hoax.
While

talking, he flippantly referred
to "gas ovens", then corrected himself when Mrs Scully pointed out
that the concept

should be "gas
chamber".

The judge invited Mrs Scully to
tender a list of books and videos to counsel at the end of the day, indicated
that Mrs

Scully be examined, then
adjourned the court for ten minutes. Upon returning at 11.50 am. There was more
talk

about the admissibility of
evidence, for example a 2000 Amnesty International report on prostitution in
Israel and Sir

Winston Churchill‚s famous
newspaper article on the nature of communism.

The judge then asked Mrs Scully
to enter the witness stand, and he asked her what "factual matter that you
wish to

S.J. Quinney College of Law, University of Utah

RESTORATIVE JUSTICE AND THE JEWISH QUESTION

I. Introduction

The language of some sectors of the restorative justice movement clearly
reflect roots in Christian religious thinking: it is the language of
reformation, repentance, and revival. "Crime is an opportunity to prevent
greater evils, to confront crime with a grace that transforms human lives to
paths of love and giving." [FN1]This Article was prepared for a panel that
was asked to reflect on the significance of that religious origin and the
strong religious element in many of the actual programs.

Great caution is necessary in using the language and concepts of particular
religious traditions in designing a criminal justice
program for a pluralist society. An effective criminal law works
mainly by teaching. But teaching will be most effective, and perhaps only can
be effective, if it is done in a common language. We Americans are heirs to
many religions with distinctive and powerful sets of traditions, myths, and
imagery. The language of our varying religions is not where we are likely to
find the common understandings of right and wrong that must permeate
successful and defensible criminal law. Restorative justice will be more
effective if it is able to transcend the religious and specifically Christian
concepts that have inspired some of its proponents.

The Inculcation of Judaism and State

While the particular languages of our differing religious traditions do not
seem to me to be good bases for a public criminal law, they are useful for
considering familiar issues in an unfamiliar light. I
therefore offer a reading of a set of unfamiliar texts from the Talmud,
one of the foundational texts of the Jewish tradition,
to make two basic points about criminal law with some applicability to the
restorative justice debate. [FN2]
At the same time, their language and structure should illustrate how disparate
our traditions are.

First, criminal law should have a limited, nontranscendental goal. Torah
law, like some of the more religious manifestations of restorative justice,
claims divine authority and aims at ultimate justice--but the Jewish texts
demonstrate that consistent working out of that view leads to the conclusion
that ideal criminal law is impossible for humans to administer. In our
democratic state, (Republic) our
goals should be less lofty; but the Jewish law experience suggests, I argue,
that we nonetheless ought to be wary of the hubris inherent in any criminal
law. Judges necessarily play God (in Biblical Hebrew, the word elohim can mean
either one); we should try to arrange matters so that they do so as little as
possible. The religious goals of bringing redemption, restoring true justice
to the world, or even "transforming human lives to paths of love and
giving" are best left to other institutions. The Jewish law texts are
thus a warning against the restorative justice movement's more messianic
aspirations to "restore" and heal the world. Merely reducing crime
is a sufficiently difficult goal.

Second, the Jewish law debate provides an alternative justification for the
restorative justice emphasis on mediation and mutual agreement. Criminal law,
in the end, must be defended on empirical grounds: primarily that it works to
reduce crime and secondarily that it mitigates the pain caused by crime it
fails to prevent. While that discussion is largely an empirical one to which
law professors are poorly qualified to contribute, I do suggest that the
historical experience of Jewish law's attempts to substitute mediation for
coercion offer qualified support for the community-based mediation techniques
of some versions of restorative justice. Mediation and compromise can be based
in the spirit of humility that is appropriate when humans try to judge things
that, in an ideal world, would not be judged by those of only human abilities.

In short, this Article attempts to demonstrate the futility of
particularist, religious-law based criminal law, using itself the language and
traditions of a particular religious law system. If it succeeds, it will
simultaneously illustrate the universality of the underlying concerns and the
particularity of the language in which we debate them.

II. God and Crime

Some proponents of the restorative justice movement base their claims on
the notion that belief in God can or is necessary to solve the problems of the
world. Charles Colson, for example, in an article subtitled The Foundations of
Restorative Justice, contends that crime is the result of loss of belief in
"objective truth," which he seems to equate with belief in God:
"As Dostoyevsky noted: If there is no God, everything is permissible.
Crime becomes inevitable." [FN3]
This strikes me as arrant, and arrogant, nonsense. No human could exist if
"everything is permissible"--human life is possible only with the
rather extreme cooperation that makes childrearing and food production
possible. Plato is more sensible on the subject: "Even a gang of thieves
will subscribe to justice among themselves." [FN4]

To be sure, belief in God helps some people act morally, but good and evil
are done by religious and nonreligious alike. For every person who acts
morally out of their religious beliefs, others act morally with purely secular
self- conceptions: the civil rights movement was led (and opposed) by church
leaders and fought in the language of the Bible, but it was staffed with
secular kids from the colleges far more than with volunteers from white
churches; the French Resistance drew its strength from the Enlightenment, not
the Church. Not only is belief in God not necessary for moral action, it is
not sufficient. For all the individuals who find in their religions the
strength to struggle for good and decency, others find in God the explanation
that permits them to, for example, defend segregation, burn their neighbors
alive, or ram jets into large buildings. Isaiah was not the first or the last
to notice that some people find the practice of religious ritual a substitute
for, rather than a goad towards, the requirements of justice:

Religions instead offer languages and sets of stories with which to
approach the difficult problems of a decent life. [FN6]
It is no accident that the Nazis took as their paradigmatic enemy the
"Christ killers" of their traditional religion, or that the Communists
built entire movements on hopes for messianic salvation, or, on the
other hand, that many of the heroes of the various struggles against evil have
used religious imagery or have been religiously inspired. Rather than solving
the problems of communal life, our religions simply reflect them. Religions
and God-talk generally offer us tools and languages for expressing our ideals,
hatreds, aspirations, fears, and feelings: rarely, it seems to me, do they
make good people bad or the reverse. [FN7]

My own Jewish tradition is typical in this respect. It is founded not only
on a universalist conception of the brotherhood of humankind (One
World Order) but also on perhaps the oldest surviving stories, or
at least the oldest surviving stories widely read in this country, of tribal
massacres mandated by God. [FN8]
But in its post-Joshua form it takes a somewhat different view on the
relationship of God and morality.

Judaism is defined in relation to a set of norms, rather than a set of
beliefs or dogmas. [FN9]
In earlier work, I have described a talmudic debate about the role of God in
setting the norms by which humans must live: the early Rabbis already
understood that law is a problem for humans, not for Heaven. Or, as they put
it, quoting Deuteronomy 30:12:

"It is not in Heaven, that you should say, 'Who will go up
to Heaven and bring it to us, so that we can hear it and do it.'"

Rather, the law has been given by God--which means that it is here and ours
and for us to make it work. Law, even divine law, is a project for humans. [FN10]

Without Grace and Salvation

This tradition of human responsibility for human actions is most pronounced
in the Jewish law of crimes. Early on, the Jewish tradition was deeply
suspicious of the very concept of criminal law, not of the notion that there
is a difference between right and wrong or that it is fairly easy to tell the
difference in most cases. Rather, there was deep skepticism about the
possibility and likelihood of human justice. Criminal law, as we shall see,
seemed too important and dangerous to be left to humans.

A. Divine Law and the Demands of Absolute Justice: A Law To Live By

To understand the talmudic view, however, we must begin earlier. The Torah
(mainly in Leviticus) explicitly includes a significant part of a criminal
code, listing several dozen crimes that carry the death penalty, generally
specifying which of the accepted methods--principally strangulation or stoning
[FN11]--was
to be imposed. [FN12]
Other crimes are punished more mysteriously--by cutting off, understood later
to mean a premature (natural) death. [FN13]

By the time of the Mishnah at the
beginning of the Christian era, the biblical code was understood to
include at least eighteen crimes punishable by stoning to death, [FN14]
as well as others by burning, [FN15]
decapitation, [FN16]
and strangulation. [FN17]
Maimonides, writing a millennium later, counts thirty-six crimes for which the
Torah decrees a punishment of death. [FN18]
It is a drastic criminal law, then, requiring drastic punishments. [FN19]

As to criminal procedure, however, the Torah is much more elusive. [FN20]
The full explanation of biblical criminal procedure appears only in Tractate
Sanhedrin of the Talmud. For our purposes, the talmudic discussion
can be summarized relatively briefly. The Bible states that no one is to be
convicted except upon the testimony of two witnesses. [FN21]
The Talmud demonstrates that the ordinary background rules require that those
witnesses be eyewitnesses, [FN22]
that they be reliable (even after testing, they must not contradict themselves
in any way), [FN23]
and God-fearing (on something like Dostoyevsky's rationale), (Noahides)
so they must be Sabbath observant, kosher keeping, adult males. As
eyewitnesses they must be able to testify not only to the physical action but
the motive--not every homicide, after all, is a murder--and so they must be
able to swear that they themselves warned the criminal that what he was about
to do was a capital crime and that he responded that he was aware of that and
intended to commit the crime precisely because it was a crime. Circumstantial
evidence was insufficient to support a conviction: the judge instructed,

"Perhaps this is what you saw: that one was running after
his fellow into a ruin, you ran after him and found him sword in hand and
blood dripping, while the murdered man was writhing. If this is what you
saw, you saw nothing." [FN24]

Similarly, confessions were inadmissible (and a fortiori, I suppose, plea
bargaining, which involves even more suspect confessions): perhaps the
confessor wished to commit suicide or was mentally disturbed. [FN25]

Now, for a human court to consciously decide to kill a human is perilously
close to murder. Accordingly, the text restricts the courts that may impose
the death penalty. Only a great Sanhedrin, sitting in the Chamber of Hewn
Stone at the Temple, [FN26]
composed of twenty-three or seventy-one [FN27]
ordained [FN28]
judges, each of whom spoke seventy languages, had children to teach them
sympathy, and was a fine enough lawyer to be able to prove that a seemingly
straightforward biblical text enacts a law opposite of what it is known to
mean, [FN29]
could impose such a penalty.

and their soon to be
"Revealed" Moshiach ben Mere man will slay the aints of Jesus
Christ, by their law and their vision against the Everlasting Holy Covenant,
the LAMB

Rv:13:7:

And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.

Moreover, so as to assure that each judge considered the case fully (and
perhaps to limit the effects of incompetent lawyering), each judge (elohim
god, shem god) was required to state his view of the case in
turn, starting with the junior-most so as to avoid intimidation or fear of
contradicting more senior colleagues. A judge who spoke in favor of the
defendant was barred from recanting, however persuasive later speakers were,
but anyone who spoke against the defendant and was later persuaded by the
arguments of others would so state. Any judge who spoke against the defendant
was required to consider the arguments to the contrary overnight before
voting. On the next day, a vote was taken, again in reverse order of
seniority; conviction required a vote of at least one judge more than a
majority. [FN30]
As if that were not enough, there was an extra rule that a unanimous vote for
conviction resulted in acquittal: seventy-one humans do not agree on anything
except when they have not thought hard enough. [FN31]

and they Crucified the LORD Jesus
the Messiah, as they will also slay his saints

There are more requirements that I will spare you. Suffice it to say,
first, that the text acknowledges that convictions must have been rare indeed:

A Sanhedrin that kills [i.e., convicts on a capital crime] once a
week is called "destructive." R. Eleazar ben Azariah says,
"Once in seventy years." R. Tarfon and R. Akiva say, "If
we had been on the Sanhedrin, there would never have been a person
killed." R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, "They would have
increased the number of spillers of blood in Israel." [FN32]

Matthew 23:

29: Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous,
30: And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.
31: Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets.
32: Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.
33: Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?
34: Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city:
35: That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.
36: Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.
37: O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would

And, second, that by the time the Mishnah, the earliest layer of the
Talmud, was finalized, neither the Chamber of Hewn Stone [FN33]
nor the Sanhedrin existed any longer, and ordination was in terminal decline. [FN34]
It follows that under the Mishnah's rules, Rabbi Akiva had won: there would
never be a conviction again.

Thus they deceive the masses for
they are of their father the father of lies

In short, there is a certain impracticality here. I believe the explanation
for this bloodthirsty law that could never lead to a conviction is that the
biblical law of crimes was understood to be law that is taught--law to live
by--not law that is to be put into practice--law to kill by. Robert Cover
taught that law is violence. [FN35]
This is a violent law that is attempting to adopt Gandhi, to renounce violence
altogether. What right have we, mere humans, to impose the law of God on
others? If violence is wrong, can judicial violence be right?

Sick perversion

Isa:30:10:

Which say to the seers, See not; and to the prophets, Prophesy not unto us right things, speak unto us smooth things, prophesy deceits:

A nineteenth century Hassidic rabbi restated the Mishnah's view poetically
in a prosaic setting:

"To his coachman, [Rebbe Wolfe of Zbaraj] said 'Please throw
away your whip. Even if a horse does deserve punishment, what makes you
think it is up to you to inflict it?'" [FN36]

Jewish law often seems to have viewed the biblical system as defining an
ideal: terrifying punishments that are never carried out. Perhaps the thought
was that terror, education, and socialization meant that carrying them out
would never be necessary. But this is implausible. Violent punishments cannot
deter once it is known that they will never be carried out--I
threaten my children daily with hangings by their thumbs,
abandonment in front of the television, and various other horrible fates, but
they never seem to take it very seriously. Similarly socialization, even in
the tight and oppressive communities of a mythical traditional past, will
never work all the time with everyone.

Still, one view is unwilling to punish, even when punishment is warranted.
In effect it says, only God can judge, so leave the judging to God:

Rav Eleazar son of R. Shimon met an officer who was arresting
thieves. He said to him, How can you [detect] them? . . . Maybe you take the
righteous and leave behind the evil? He said, and what can I do? It is the
king's command.

He said to him, Come, I will teach you. Go to a tavern at the
fourth hour of the day. If you see a man drinking wine, holding a cup in his
hand and napping, ask about him. If he is a scholar and is napping, [it is
because] he rose early to study; if he is a laborer, he rose early to do his
work; if his work is at night he may have been stretching wires. If not, he
is a thief: arrest him.

hahahahhahahhahahhaha go......get them all
saith the Schneerson-Bushka-Ashkroft traingle of Homelandt "Say"
kurity and their AKT of Patriotism to their shemgods

A report was heard in the House of the King. They said, let the
reader of the letter be the messenger.

They brought R. Eleazar son of R. Shimon, and he began arresting
thieves.

R. Joshua ben Karhah sent to him: Vinegar son of wine![FN37]How long will you send (moser) the people of our God for execution?
[R. Eleazar] sent him the answer: I am destroying thorns from the vineyard.
[R. Joshua] sent to him: Let the Owner of the vineyard come and destroy His
thorns.[FN38]

here come moshiach...here come
moshiach

R. Eleazar challenges the frankly amoral, perhaps somewhat consequentialist
view of the officer with a retributivist challenge: "Perhaps you
take the innocent." He then appears to resolve his own criticism
with a magical method of distinguishing the guilty from the innocent.
Interestingly, the Talmud, which is entirely capable of criticizing magic or
pointing out logical fallacies, does not pause to question the efficacy of R.
Eleazar's method. On the contrary, the immediately following stories emphasize
that R. Eleazar did not make mistakes, even if ordinary mortals following his
method might. [FN39]
The story then, is an implicit criticism of those who, without R. Eleazar's magical
advantage, dare to arrest when they might be condemning the innocent.

But notice how far-ranging R. Joshua's critique becomes if we accept R.
Eleazar's claim that his methods are fail-proof: R. Eleazar's complaint was
"perhaps you take the innocent," but R. Joshua's
is, rather, "how dare you arrest the guilty!" It is for God, not
men, to eradicate the thorns that God has placed in the vineyard of Israel.
Thorns are also part of God's plan or, in nontheological language, even
criminals are members of the community. [FN40]

B. The Failure of Divine Justice: "They would have Increased the
Number of Spillers of Blood"

Thus via Noahide Laws Kill
them by precog...FIRST

But how can this be? The Mishnah records an immediate response to Akiva's
claim that he would never have voted for a conviction--and to its implicit
adoption of his position. R. Shimon ben Gamliel says, "They would
have increased the number of spillers of blood in Israel." [FN41]
Thus, if Rabbi Akiva sought to make the criminal law a law to live by, to
teach rather than apply, Rabban Gamliel makes the obvious rejoinder: Akiva's
ineffective criminal law-to-live-by is rather a law that will lead to more
crime and thus more death. Criminals may be members of the community, but
their behavior is destructive of it.

they are cursed by their
laws..and their failure to move them themselve's..in their own admittance

God does not make us behave; we must make
each other behave. A famous saying makes the point dramatically:

"Rabbi Hanina, assistant High Priest, would say, 'Pray for
the health/peace (shalom) of the government [the word for
"government" (malchut) is the one usually used to refer to the
illegitimate Roman occupying power] for without it, people would swallow
each other alive.'" [FN42]

In the Middle Ages, it was put this way:

"If everything is left to stand on the law of Torah, as when
the Sanhedrin imposes judgment, the world would be desolate." [FN43]

In short, the problem with the law as set out in the Talmud's tractate
Sanhedrin is that it would not prevent crime (or more precisely, would not
prevent it as effectively as a more punitive law might--even with punitive
laws, much of the world has been pretty desolate).

The decapitations are shown almost daily now on
the Talmudic Controlled news and on the jewish Television series and movies as
well as video games. Soon they will began killing the saints of Jesus the
Christ for an example. Many who say Lord, Lord will rush to embrace these
shemgods and their laws from fear of these mere men, who can only destroy the
flesh, and they will see that Great and terrible day of the Lord, for they did
not fear him, and HIM Alone who can destroy both body and the soul and cast it
into the abyss with the beast moshiach

Jewish criminal law, thus, centers around a paradox. On the one hand, as
Rabban Gamliel emphasizes, we need fear of punishment to keep people in line.
This is a utilitarian, consequentialist defense of criminal law: punishment is
justified because otherwise "people would swallow each other alive."
[FN44]

On the other hand, Rabbi Akiva takes a deontic, justice-based, retributive
view. Punishment is only justified when it is deserved. Ordinary law is
applied by people, not by God. The same God who made us need fear of the law
to reduce spilling of blood, also made us incapable of the knowledge that is
necessary to justly apply the law.

wrong god...this god has no ONLY begotten Son and
is a lust-er of blood

Human beings can never be certain that the law is fully just, that the
accused is factually guilty, that the technically guilty deserve punishment,
or, as Rabbi Wolfe of Zbaraj points out, even that we are authorized to
punish. The only way we can assure that courts will only punish appropriately
is by preventing them from doing it at all. [FN45]
For who are we--who unlike God cannot know the motivations and intentions of
our fellow humans--to decide when punishment is deserved, let alone to
arrogate to ourselves the right to impose it. Rabbi Akiva's view not only
accepts retributive theory but takes it seriously: we must not punish the
innocent, but we cannot know who is guilty, and we cannot retribute without
the knowledge we cannot have. Justice demands that we not act unjustly; in the
criminal justice system, that means we cannot act at all. Rabbi Akiva, then,
demands that the judge who dares to punish others act justly himself; as
another famous rabbi of the same period said, "Let he who is without
blemish cast the first stone." [FN46]
Only God is without blemish. [FN47]

Jesus said Call no man rabbi....sorry blasphemer
wrong Jesus and was not a student of Talmud sorcery....but they are now
propagating this garbage as are the Judeo-Churchinsanist

Rabban Gamliel retorts that justice which encourages murder is no justice
at all. The tension has no resolution, but there are attempts.

and thus they continue with their mass murders of
their shemgod wars

One attempted resolution is a deep--and ultimately somewhat implausible--
faith in an individualized providence. This view, contrary to the spirit of
the Book of Job, adds wish fulfillment to its description of the divine system
of justice. If human justice fails, God will punish instead:

R. Shimon Ben Shetah said, "May I never see comfort, if I
did not see one who ran after his comrade into a ruin, and I ran after him,
and I saw a sword in his hand and the blood was dripping and the killed man
was writhing. And I said to him, Evil one, who killed him? It was either you
I! But what can I do--your blood is not given into my hands, for the Torah
says, 'By the testimony of two witnesses . . .' May He Who knows thoughts
take vengeance on this person who has killed his comrade." They say
that they hadn't moved from there when a snake came and bit him and he died.

One witness to convict a Goyim...a
saint...one false witness.

But was he deserving of a snake[bite]? R. Yosef said, and the
Academy of Hizkiyah taught also, that from the day that the Temple was
destroyed, even though the Sanhedrin ceased, the four methods of capital
punishment didn't cease. They didn't cease? Surely they did cease.

Rather, punishment by the four methods of execution did not
cease. One who is liable to stoning either falls from the roof, or is
trampled by a wild animal. One who is liable to burning, either falls into a
fire or a snake bites him. One who is liable to decapitation, either is
handed over to the malchut [foreign government] or bandits come on him. One
who is liable to strangulation, either drowns in the river or dies of
diphtheria [thought of as a disease of strangulation].[FN48]

Right the LORD who destroyed their temple of
abomination and their Sanhedrin...will carry their bloodlust judgement FOR
THEM.....yeah want some ocean front property in the Sahara....Damned these
sick chasidic Chabad Lubavith Pharisees in hell for their sorceries and
their murders...............and their blasphemies....

Revenge of the perverted sons of satan's
synagogues

But sometimes we must wait a long time indeed for Heaven's justice. For
those of little faith or patience, snakebites are, I fear, likely to be only
slim consolation for the failure of the Sanhedrin system of Torah law ever to
achieve a conviction. The system of snakebites and accidents requires a
confidence in God's simplicity that any observer of the ways of the world (let
alone reader of Torah) should question.

One assumes R. Joshua's retort--"let the Owner of the vineyard
weed His thorns"--would not satisfy those who, with Rabban
Shimon ben Gamliel, Rabbi Hanina, and Thomas Hobbes, believe that without laws
and civil authorities "people would swallow each other alive."
[FN49] On
this justification from necessity, Jewish law proceeded to create a second
criminal justice system not based on Torah law at all but rather on the need
to keep society functioning. [FN50]

God's ideal law failed to preserve human
society. So the legal system created a parallel, human, criminal
justice system based on human law without divine sanction. Still, R. Joshua's
concerns--that even when we know (in a sense not usually possible to humans)
that someone is guilty, only God may justly punish--give a framework even for
those of little faith who are not willing to leave God's work to God alone.

III. Creating Human Criminal Law: The Justification From
Necessity and the Effectiveness Criterion

This reading of Rabbis Joshua and Akiva, thus, makes the dramatic claim
that in a system of absolute justice, criminal law can be enforced only by
God. Generalized, this same argument applies to religiously based law as a
whole, including the version of restorative justice championed by Charles
Colson. If the law is divine and its intention is to create a holy people,
only the Owner of the vineyard has either the right or the ability weed His
thorns.

At the same time, Jewish law acknowledges and accepts Rabban Gamliel's
objection that these demands of justice hardly seem practical. We cannot leave
punishment to God, because without human justice, humans will commit more
crimes. Morever, this concept of justice does not even seem just, to the
extent that the absence of a functioning system of criminal law invites more
injustice. Presumably, that is why creating
a judicial system is one of the seven Noahide
laws that Jewish law insists are binding on all humans everywhere. [FN51]
What then can we say about human, imperfect, not divine criminal law, criminal
law that is motivated by the necessity of preventing people from
"swallowing each other alive" ?

So they Must create TERROR in order to justify
their god's satanic laws....the god they chose...the Robber, the master of
Terror and enslavement

Now they're at it again. As Vice President Dick Cheney
put it Tuesday, "it's absolutely essential that eight
weeks from today, on Nov. 2, we make the right
choice, because if we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we'll
get hit again and we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the
standpoint of the United States."

Vote for us or die.

First, criminal law is justifiable, if it is justifiable at all, only by
reference to the needs of society. It is not to redress the balance of the
Universe, cleansing the land of blood guilt as Torah
(Talmudic) law demands. Nor is it
for the personal salvation or redemption of the criminal.

Not so....for the Talmudic Gemara
"rabbinic" scribes say the decapitation of the unobedient Goyim is
for their own salvation

Those are issues of
absolute justice that must be left to He-who-knows-thoughts. [FN52]
Nor, except in the crudest form, can it be for the assuagement of the pain of
the victim. Those goals must be left to time and individual relationships,
where hurt feelings can be mended and pain assuaged in ways that are not the
province of the courts. For the courts to get involved in the revenge business
requires the kind of knowledge and authority that R. Joshua teaches we cannot
have.

Coercing apologies or forgiveness, it seems to me, is no less fraught with
epistemological difficulty. Criminal and victim may be able to reach a
resolution; however, the process seems ill suited to routinization and
institutionalization. If judges lack the knowledge necessary to judge, surely
they are unequipped to take on the more difficult task of restructuring human
relationships.

Rather, punishment is justified only if it reduces the likelihood of crime
in the future. [FN53]
The purpose of human criminal justice is to prevent people from swallowing
each other alive, not to weed the vineyard or purge the land of blood guilt.

Restorative justice rhetoric sometimes makes a distinction between offenses
against the majesty of the king and offenses against society: criminal law, we
heard in this Symposium, is prosecuted by the state and imposes punishments on
behalf of the state because it redresses offenses against the king's peace;
restorative justice aims instead to restore society. [FN54]
Jewish law, like modern democratic law (one hopes) rejects the alleged goal of
protecting the king's majesty. The state has value only to the extent it
serves its citizens; one protects the state only in order to protect society.
Conversely, when the state intervenes to punish crime it does so as an agent
for society's peace, not the king's majesty--all criminal justice, not just
the restorative justice variety, must be motivated by the need to preserve
society.

Noahidism, Collective Communitarian

On the Jewish law side, one does not pray for the health of the
malchut (the foreign government) [FN55]
because of the majesty of the king, but because it alone can keep the peace
that society needs. Similarly, modern democratic states do not claim the
divine right of kings or to be fascist embodiments of the national spirit. The
state has no claim to value in and of itself; it is only a tool for its
citizens. Accordingly, the state punishes (or should punish) not to vindicate
its own dignity--an absurd concept in any liberal politics--but rather to
protect society.

Damned Lies, clever though....they
only want the laws to destroy the last remnant of Jesus Christ saints...period

On this view, restorative justice differs in its means but not in its goals
from conventional criminal law in a democratic state. The defense of
restorative justice must be the same as the defense of any punitive system:
restorative justice is valuable if we have reason to believe that it will
lower the crime rate at a morally acceptable cost or lessen the costs of
unpreventable crime without inducing more. Grander claims--doing justice,
restoring moral balance, earning salvation--demand a type of justice (the
absolute justice of the Torah system or its equivalent in other systems and
other languages) that we cannot make operational any more than could Rabbi
Akiva.

Only true faith in Jesus the
Christ, restores the Law of GOD . A true Christ believer...TRUE...does none of
the crimes and murders. Any man who slays is a murderer..period

Criminal law, then, requires a utilitarian defense of the type Rabban
Gamliel is looking for: it must work to reduce crime. We might refer to this
as the effectiveness criterion.

A. Distinguishing Punishment From Oppression

The effectiveness criterion generally rules out the most shocking claim of
utilitarian punishment theory: that it sometimes may be justifiable to
"punish" the innocent in order to generally deter others from crime.
It seems to me rather that it mandates something quite close to a requirement
of due process and proportionality of the offense to the penalty.

Violence that is not deserved is not punishment, but crime or oppression or
terror or war. As Holmes put it, "even a dog distinguishes between being
stumbled over and being kicked." [FN56]
All human systems of punishment depend on the criminal and the
intended-to-be-deterred understanding the difference between punishment and
simple violence. Negative reinforcement alone is never enough.

Do you hear that rib-eyes

Punishment may induce repentance and reform. [FN57]
But crime, oppression, and terror more typically induce resistance, and the
difference between punishment and oppression is only legitimacy in the eyes of
the punished and their community. Were that not so, Ariel Sharon's violence
would long since have deterred the Palestinians, or vice versa; Al Qaeda's
attacks would be bringing us around to their view of the world. Indeed, the
difference between crime and punishment itself is based in legitimacy; were
that not so, ordinary judges would be liable for assault or worse each time
they decided a case.

When state violence is understood as illegitimate, prison becomes a rite of
passage, a mark of true patriotism, a school of resistence or leadership, or
just a fact of life, as in pre-Revolutionary Russia, the Soviet Gulags, and
the prisons of colonial governments everywhere. Martin Luther King, Natan
Scharansky, Nelson Mandela, and a host of other national liberation heroes all
served time in prison, but instead of deterring their followers it goaded them
on. They and their movements classified the state violence not as punishment
but as oppression.

Noahidism by force and fear intimidation tactics

Similarly, violence that is random is neither punishment nor oppression: it
is just a fact of life, like an earthquake or other disaster. Earthquakes do
not teach that one ought to obey social norms any more than does oppression. [FN58]
State systems are no different. A criminal "justice" system that
randomly imposes violence on the not-guilty is not only unjust but is also
unlikely to actually work at reducing crime. Stalinism's legacy includes a
society of mass lawlessness.

To be coherent, the very concept of punishment must contain within it a
theory of justice, and to be effective, that theory of justice must be
accepted by the target population and not merely the enforcers. Naked negative
reinforcement is not punishment and will not function as such until the target
population accepts it as just or deserved.

with enough terror, they will accept any laws and
any mere man who says he has the world's solution by these Noahide Laws of the
shemgods

Violence is only likely to be effective punishment if it is viewed as
legitimate. Specific deterrence works only if those upon whom it is imposed
accept it as legitimate, as punishment to be accepted rather than oppression
to be resisted or violence to be avoided. General deterrence requires the same
of those who fear its imposition. Thus the vulgar utilitarian claim that since
punishment is meant to deter, there is no reason that only the guilty be
"punished" can stand only if, implausibly, the targets of
utilitarian terror are unable to tell the difference between a fair system and
the opposite. But people are notoriously good at detecting unfairness,
particularly when they are its victims. Violence that the imposers know is not
legitimate is highly unlikely to be perceived as legitimate.(WTC
2001)(see Iraq) It is far more
likely that enforcers will fool themselves into thinking that their system is
just (and perceived as just) than that they will fool the target population,
particularly if enforcers have a failure of identification with the target,
for instance because they see the target group as different from themselves
(an underclass, national or racial minority, innate criminal types, and so
on). Good faith is not enough, but it is an absolute minimum for legitimacy. [FN59]

Some would argue that the success of totalitarian and absolutist states in
reducing crime disproves my claim here. Similarly, one could argue that the
success of criminal elements in maintaining their variety of social order in
certain neighborhoods at certain times demonstrates that terror alone--without
legitimacy--can work. The analogy demonstrates the problem: without
legitimacy, there is no difference between crime and justice. Even to claim
that terror can reduce crime, we must have some basis for distinguishing
terror from crime.

In the name of the Judeo-Gawd...GIVE IT
LEGITIMACY.....death by decapitation Sanhedrin 57a.

Even if there were an important difference between illegitimate state
violence and illegitimate private violence (and it is not immediately obvious
that there is), the violence necessary to eliminate (private) crime without
the help of legitimacy is simply so great that it isn't worth it. If the price
of ending crime is living in Castro's Cuba, Stalin's USSR, or Saddam's Iraq,
the solution is no improvement over the problem.

Castro a jew, Stalin rules by the Talmudic jews,
and the US put Saddam in power

But the premise is also highly questionable: at least after the fact, the
supposed law abidingness of subjects of the Soviet Union seems to have been an
illusion. This seems to me utterly predictable. Absolute states are by
definition lawless states; they cannot teach or breed respect for the law but
only fear of power. Even if we do not count the crime of the state itself (and
I see no reason why we should not), absolute states seem more likely to hide
crime than eliminate it.

see Bushkevik and company

Fear breeds evasion and resistence, covert if not
overt. Perhaps the Soviet citizens were not openly criminal or in open
rebellion until the very end, but they did become experts at quiet cheating
early on.

The argument here is of a rule utilitarian type. It is more likely that we
will reach an effective criminal law by avoiding the ultimate issue
(effectiveness) and instead thinking about a fair criminal law. In the name of
effectiveness or necessity, it is too easy to commit injustices that undermine
the very effectiveness we aim for. Just as rule utilitarians are skeptical
about the ability of individuals to make utilitarian calculations under
pressure of events and therefore recommend instead rules that look remarkably
like ordinary morality, so too effective criminal law requires that we put
aside images of lone cowboys shooting the villains into submission or
charismatic preachers converting the sinners, and instead think about justice.
As Maimonides counsels in his discussion of courts that impose punishments on
those who are not liable to punishment under Torah law:

"Let not human dignity be light in the court's eyes . . . .
The court must be careful not to destroy their honor but rather only to
enhance the honor of God . . . [by] acting according to the Torah's laws and
regulations." [FN60]Talmud Bavli

Maimonides' argument is similar to a common justification of modern
restorative justice practice, and indeed to broader sociological theories of
perceived legitimacy such as those associated with Tom Tyler. [FN61]
To teach norms, we must follow them. Ultimately, effectiveness--the success of
the criminal justice system in reducing crime--depends more on whether we can
successfully inculcate values of respect than on deterrence, incapacitation,
fear, or revenge.

Mt:23:4:

For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.

Or, to put the same thing another way, deterrence only deters to the extent
that those we hope to deter accept the system as fair--otherwise, rebellion or
resistence are likely to seem more appropriate responses. When the courts
follow norms that are accepted by society at large (and the subsections to
which potential criminals belong), then legal sanctions will be accepted as
legitimate punishment for bad acts, and legal norms will be enforced by
social
sanctions that are far more influential than anything the law alone can
provide. When they are not, the law's reach is likely to be limited, and its
violence excessive. Effectiveness requires legitimacy and legitimacy requires
acting legitimately. Only if the courts respect human dignity can the criminal
law teach respect for human dignity.

There are, of course, controversial issues of what legitimacy or fairness
require. But the basic requirements of due process--permitting defendants an
opportunity to defend themselves with a fair procedure before an unbiased
tribunal, requiring a strong showing of factual guilt before imposing
punishment--are clear and widely agreed upon. So too are the basic ideals of
restitution and restorative justice: if you hurt someone you should apologize,
and if you broke something, you should replace it. To the extent that
restorative justice focuses the criminal justice system on issues of justice
and on making that justice apparent to criminals, victims, and society at
large, surely the criminal law will be more effective in reducing crime.

This section began by questioning the restorative justice goal of repairing
human relationships. That task is too great for merely human judges. [FN62]
But that critique may not apply to a more modest version, in which the human
goal of reducing crime and its damages is pursued in part by seeking to help
the criminal justice system (through family conferencing and related
restorative justice techniques) facilitate--rather than coerce--healing, or
provide a framework in which individuals, if they are so inclined, will be
supported in rebuilding or restoring relationships.

Holistic Consciousness

The restorative justice foci on mutual dignity, on censuring crime rather
than criminals, on inclusiveness and empowerment, all seem fully in keeping
with the older insights of the Jewish law tradition: even a sinner is a member
of the community. [FN63]
And criminals (or potential criminals) who are treated as members of the
community are more likely to accept that they are members of the community and
therefore more likely to act like members of the community. This congruence is
no substitute for real data, but in the absence of convincing empirical
results, it may provide some reason to be less skeptical of radical changes in
the way we do criminal law than one might be otherwise.

IV. Human Law and Restorative Justice: The Power and
Poverty of Mediation

Treason of this new "Amarakan"
Government to a foreign power, ISREALHELL

The first message of the Jewish law texts, the primacy of the effectiveness
goal, is somewhat at odds with at least the more millenarian versions of
faith- based restorative justice: it counsels restricting the state to smaller
goals, to seeking peace rather than redemption. The second message is that the
community must remain central at all times: it is only the needs of the
community that allow judges to play God. This latter theme fits better with
the restorative justice project.

The centrality of community suggests that if reconciliation is possible, it
must be done first. It is not possible for a criminal to "pay his debt to
society" by serving time in prison, any more than it is possible to
attain atonement for sins against people by praying at Yom Kippur. Prayer can
win forgiveness for sins against God, but sins against people require making
peace with the people against whom you sinned. Similarly, even if prison could
atone for the abstract crime against the social order (but atonement is one of
those things best left to a divine criminal law system in which convictions
and punishments come only from Heaven), the hurt to real, individual people
must be healed by more personal processes. This, I take it, is a central claim
of the restorative justice movement, and it seems reasonable to me.

For a criminal to reform, he must follow the same path as Maimonides sets
out for a sinner: first, to make whole the damage he did; second, to ask for
forgiveness from both the individual victim and the community; third, to
resolve not to do it again and state his resolution to the community in
public; and last, to change his life--his friends, his tastes, his usual way
of going about life, even his name--so that in fact he does not do it again. [FN64]

A criminal who reforms in this way is, perhaps, a criminal who need not be
sequestered, need not be imprisoned or executed. Unfortunately, we have no
better way of knowing who has undergone such a genuine reform than we have of
knowing who was genuinely guilty in the first place; certainly, the fact that
a criminal has accepted this religion or another one is thin evidence on which
to change a sanction. To the extent that faith-based restorative justice seeks
to cure the criminal, I worry that God-players will overplay their hands.
Sudden conversions made under the threat of the regular criminal sanctions
smell too much of the bad old days of holy war.

the wars of the shemgods and their god hahashem

But to the extent that restorative justice processes encourage some
criminals to reintegrate into society, to apologize to their victims and make
them whole to the extent possible, they are moving in the direction of healing
society, not merely souls. The message of the effectiveness criterion is, it
seems to me, that the test must be empirical: does the community-based
discussion, mediation, and plan in fact make victims feel better, reduce
recidivism, or reduce crime?

see Bryan Kolby apology

A. Jewish Law and the Problems of Mediation

As we have seen, the Torah (Talmud)
criminal law as explained in the Talmud cannot
function as a coercive system of social control. Instead, Torah criminal law,
to the best of my limited knowledge, has functioned as an instrument of social
control primarily as a teaching tool. It is law to be taught and debated, not
law to be implemented; law as a symbol rather than law to direct state
violence. If kids spend enough time arguing about right and wrong, they will
understand that they should not commit wrongs. In any event, during the most
dangerous years, the young men will be locked up in school debating instead of
fighting, without time for crime. There is much wisdom in this approach: if we
had more young men in school--or at useful and productive jobs, in the Peace
Corps or similar volunteer enterprises, in organized sports activities, or the
like--we would surely have fewer in prison.

US 2 Million 2004

In the eras when Jewish law also functioned as an instrument of social
violence and coercion, it did so as a matter of human law, not divinely
commanded Torah. The tradition that the king or the foreign government is
permitted (or required) to institute an effective criminal justice system was
extended to self-governing Jewish communities, to justify Jewish towns in
promulgating and enforcing codes of criminal law with no resemblance to the
Torah code. In order to "restrain the current generation"
or to "meet the needs of the hour" the authorities
were permitted to take any measures necessary to effectively reduce crime.[FN65]
By the Middle Ages, it seems to have been generally accepted that communal
officials could impose fines and corporal punishment or even--at least in some
places and some times--turn accused criminals over to the gentile
authorities,
without regard to the elaborate rules of Tractate Sanhedrin.

Breaking their laws, always

To my limited knowledge, Jewish communal law often emphasized restitution,
fines, and shame. Criminals should feel the social hurt they have caused, and
should heal it where they can. The first step, where possible, is restitution:
Jewish law does not make our careful distinction between tort and criminal
law, so even in criminal cases, the criminal must make the victim whole. And,
since Jewish law, again unlike American law, makes little distinction between
religious and social obligations, the rabbinic courts will encourage the
criminal to genuinely repent--the Jewish word is "return," return to
the law and especially to the community. Beyond that, following the model of
the Torah, a fine is due, generally paid to the victim rather than the
community.

see victim restitution laws being enforced, as
well as civil suits, even when criminal cases are aquitted.

The ban--separation from the society itself--was often the ultimate
punishment for the worst of crimes. Imprisonment, which is not mentioned in
the Torah system, does not often appear in the texts with which I am familiar,
perhaps due to the overwhelming value of maintaining the community. Indeed,
ransoming prisoners held by the gentiles was considered one of the most
important communal responsibilities,

30 pieces of silver

sometimes taking priority over even basic
communal functions such as feeding the poor or financing the religious and
educational institutions. [FN66]
On the other hand, turning offenders over to the gentiles (notwithstanding R.
Joshua's disapproval) clearly happened, so any standard criminal justice
techniques employed by host societies became part of the Jewish law system by
incorporation, so to speak. [FN67]
The law in practice, however, seems often to have varied from the law in the
books. In practice, adjudicators, conscious of the high cost of presuming to
take on the God-like role of judge, often seek to act as mediators instead. [FN68]
They seek to bring the parties to an amicable agreement, not to impose the
will of the community on the criminal.

Not so as the Talmudic Judges are known as gods,
elohim

Mediation and reconciliation are among the key goals of the restorative
justice movement. But mediation comes with an obvious drawback: mediation
necessarily reaches a conclusion that reflects the initial power relations
between the parties. Genuine mediation cannot redistribute power, unless the
powerful voluntarily agree to give up their advantages. [FN69]
This weakness of mediation is a serious problem in criminal law, which is
always about redistributing power. On the one hand, criminal law must restrain
the socially powerful from abusing their power--King David from killing Uriah
in order to conceal his adultery, King Ahab from killing Naboth to seize his
vineyard, modern corporate chief executives from evading sales taxes or
pollution controls or distorting economic reporting for private profit, the
rich from bribing public decision-makers, and so on. [FN70]
Mediation can offer no counterweight to the powerful. On the other hand, even
the crimes of the underclass are abuses of power, most obviously in the crude
physical power of violent street crime. An ancient aphorism says that the
presence of elderly moneychangers on the street corners (easy targets for
muggings) is the surest sign of a just (and sufficiently powerful) government.
Mediation is unlikely to redress these imbalances of power either.

so their is a change needed from US Constitutional
Government to the Talmudic satanic laws...........and done 1991 102 Congress,
House Joint resolution 104, PL 102-14 disguised as "Education Day,
USA".

Jewish law accounts are plagued by the problem of the powerful person who
ignores the mandate of the court--the person who uses connections in the
gentile world to overturn the court's mandate, or the person who simply
refuses to agree voluntarily to the restitution the court sees as necessary. [FN71]
At this point the historical system seems to have simply given up: there was
nothing to do about the person who ignores social sanctions, but wait for God
to send a snake. And sometimes one must wait a long time indeed for God or
snakes.

therefore they must now send Guillotines to any
who will not submit

The Jewish law experience suggests then that a central theoretical and
practical issue for the restorative justice movement should be ensuring that
mediation does not become a vehicle for ratifying existing injustices. It is
encouraging to note that practitioners and theorists of the movement seem well
aware of the issue. [FN72]

In Jewish law, mediation often resulted from a fear of doing injustice even
in the name of justice. "Let the Owner of the vineyard remove His
thorns" remained a powerful refrain even in the human system designed
only to reduce crime.

so they crucified HIM the Owner of the Vinyard,
and put a crown of thorns on his head

The motive of mediation in restorative justice is rather
different: an empirically based belief that treating criminals as members of
the community, confronting them with the results of their deeds, and
incorporating their victims into a resolution will both reintegrate criminals
and appease victims, lowering both the crime rate and the pain crime causes.

Critically, restorative justice processes, unlike traditional Jewish law,
operate in the strong shadow of conventional criminal law of powerful states.
So long as either side may invoke the state procedure in place of the
restorative justice one, mediation is unlikely to deviate far from the
solutions the state would otherwise impose (more precisely, any such
deviations are likely to be Pareto optimal improvements over the state
solution, since movement away from the state solution requires consent of all
sides).

The shadow of conventional criminal law obviously lessens the problem of
mediation ratifying existing power relationships, but conversely creates a
real potential that mediation will become, or be perceived as, a mere
ritualistic ratification of imposed solutions. Ritualized condemnation,
apology, forgiveness, and catharsis always threatens to become an empty
masquerade where participants follow the script without the emotional contact
necessary to achieve restorative justice's ambitious goals. [FN73]

The two goals are in necessary conflict. If mediation is to result in real
catharsis and genuine reconciliation, it must reflect the actual feelings and
real values of the participants. On the other hand, if it is to help in
imposing society's values, it must reach a more or less predetermined range of
results. Success thus requires, first, that the criminal accept in some sense
the social values that condemn his act, and second, that the mediators be
skilled enough to allow the participants to come to this conclusion on their
own. This is a practice that will require skilled and sensitive practitioners;
a rule of humans and not merely laws. [FN74]

B. Restitution, Reintegration, and Return

Both the restorative justice idea and Jewish law emphasize restitution. Our
American law probably underutilizes restitution--when criminals can make the
victim whole, it seems elementary that they should, and artificial to separate
the restitution claim into a separate tort action. In particular, tort law,
with its emphasis on monetary damages collected by judicial process, may be
largely useless in the petty crime arena. A restorative justice conference and
agreement could generate effective restitution that would be economically
impossible to achieve in a tort action.

Restorative justice advocates also make the somewhat surprising claim that
they are able to win genuine apologies from defendants. [FN75]
Apologies matter, as any parent (or student of international conflicts) knows.
If restorative justice processes win them, they are achieving a powerful form
of nonmonetary restitution that rarely happens in court and would never be
part of a court order in a litigated criminal or tort case. To be sure, good
lawyers for guilty defendants in both civil and criminal cases know that a
timely apology will make settlement discussions far easier, but the actual
process of preparing to defend in court and defending itself often seems to
leave litigants and lawyers in a defensive psychology poorly situated for
apology and compromise.

Just as important, restorative justice shares with traditional law an
emphasis on affirming the criminal's membership in the community. American
imprisonment "upstate" deliberately separates our criminals from
society. Presumably, this separation helps create a criminal subculture that
can evolve differently and apart from the mainstream one. Successful criminal
law, more likely, would bring criminals back into the dominant culture.
Reintegration, rather than sequestration, ought to be the goal.

Criminal law is a teaching tool--including for those not directly subject
to it--and we seem, in some parts of our country, to have lost control of the
lesson we are teaching. It ought to be one of inclusion, mutual respect,
demand for civil behavior, and an emphasis on the mutual dependence that
people have who live together in a common society. I do not see how that
lesson can be taught by excessive violence: one does not educate children to
be good parents by beating them, and it seems unlikely that you can socialize
the underclass into middle class norms by massive prison sentences for trivial
drug offenses, racially skewed decisions about when to apply the death
sentence, or, most significantly of all, without genuine middle class
employment possibilities. When violations occur, we should be using the
powerful sanctions of social pressure more than we do: publicly humiliating
those who are still involved enough in society to be humiliated and shamed;
offering opportunities to make reparations and even to repent for those who
wish to be reaccepted.

Still, though, Jewish history, indeed human history, makes clear the limits
of this limited criminal law. There are times when we must stand up in outrage
at offenses against our common morality or the norms of society. There are
crimes for which no restitution and perhaps no human forgiveness is possible.
Then violence in return for violence indeed may be the only answer--but only
if it works. The justification for criminal law must be that in fact it
reduces crime.

V. Conclusion: The Risks of Religious Language in a
Pluralist Society

The effectiveness criterion suggests that restorative justice must be
judged, first and foremost, on whether it works. Does it cause criminals who
would otherwise reject the legitimacy of their punishment to accept it as
educational? Does it lower recidivism rates? Does it make victims feel better?
Those are at least in part empirical questions where law professors ought to
fear to tread.

I will make one final point, however, about the issues raised by this
particular panel, on the use of particular religious traditions in the secular
law of a liberal limited state governing a mixed multitude of a people. It is
hard for me to imagine the circumstances under which American criminals would
accept as legitimate punishment meted out and justified in the language of and
according to the standards of religious traditions other than their own.

Talmudic Communitarian Communist Collective -V-
Constitutional US LAW

The language of Christian repentance is as foreign to me as, I imagine, the
story of weeding the vineyard is to most of you. Generic or specific
Protestant rhetoric undoubtably will speak to many others as it spoke to
Charles Colson. Nonetheless, we are a many-textured mixed multitude, exiles
from many Egypts, not the inheritors of a monolithic autochthonous tradition
sprung from the land itself. [FN76]
Many of us are de-churched, in many cases for several generations already.
Those who are not, hear different resonances from different words: the Old
Testament of vengeance is not the Torah that I read. [FN77]

Lying Snake in the grass

Faith-based initiatives draw their power from a specific faith. But in a
pluralistic society that same power will be their downfall. If restorative
justice were to mean, as Colson would have it, accepting Jesus, repentance,
and mutual forgiveness, it would be too close to tent revivalism to speak to
many of us. If the words explaining the violence of criminal law are foreign,
the violence of the law risks being perceived as merely arbitrary. And the
effectiveness criterion guarantees that if criminal law is perceived as
illegitimate, it will be. Criminal law must be accepted to work and it must
work to be acceptable. Therefore, it must aim for the common denominator in
its language and teaching. In short, we must, however regretfully, avoid the
intoxicating particularism of revivalist and messianic religion.

For mere man anointed Moshiach is much more
preferable, One Despot for all the earth

Beyond this largely linguistic point, there is a larger problem with the
religious aspiration.

The liberal tradition has long taught that redemption and atonement, indeed
love, are rather higher goals than the state should aspire to. [FN78]
When restorative justice advocates contend that they aspire to "justice
[that is] administered with love," [FN79]
I fear that the relevant text is less likely to be the Sermon on the Mount
than One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest or Animal Farm. States that aspire to
perfection typically create something rather less than that: the Ayatollah's Iran,
the communists' USSR, the Puritans' New England, or Cromwell's civil war. The
state should aim lower, not for perfection but just for peace. [FN80]

Therefore a godless Universal Noahide secular so
called justice ruled by Talmudic Chasidic Pharisaic sages, who have no god,
but a man made god they make unto themselves

It is the needs of civil peace that justify its use of force, not the desire
to bring criminals to a state of grace. In the name of love and redemption,
many crimes can be committed that humble mutual respect would have avoided.
This is the basic lesson of the liberal tradition of limited government: a
state that treats its citizen as a respect-worthy stranger is likely to be
more attractive than one that sees the citizen as a beloved child or lover.
Lovers take liberties that states should not. [FN81]

Smoothe Tongues

Accordingly, I hear both my traditions--the Jewish law sentiment that
punishment is for God, not men, and the liberal suspicion of totalistic states
that is both a reading of the biblical prophets' critique of the kings and a
rejection of their aspirations to messianic redemption--urging us to tread
lightly. Those who wish to have the state play God--by taking life or
destroying it--are treading where angels should fear to walk. Those who wish
to have the state play church--by forcing reconciliation and reform--may also
be passing beyond the limits of a decent democracy.

The basic premise of restorative justice seems completely sound. If the
goal is to reduce crime, harsh punishment alone seems unlikely to work. You
cannot teach a child to avoid hitting others by hitting him; it is hard to
believe that you can teach a people to not kill by killing, or teach criminals
to respect the law and rights of others by violating the rights of the
accused, or teach them to get a job by making them unemployable. Axes of Evil
notwithstanding, most evil is done by people who are enmeshed in a system that
invites them to do it; [FN82]
one task of thinkers about criminal law is to understand why and how. Bringing
criminals and potential criminals back into the web of constraints that is a
functioning society is precisely the track that seems likely to work for the
legitimate function of criminal law: to reduce crime.

[FN *].
Professor of Law, S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah. This
Article was prepared for the Utah Restorative Justice Conference and made
possible by the generous support of the S.J. Quinney College of Law Research
Stipend Program. I am deeply grateful for research assistance provided by the
College of Law library, for the support of my colleagues, and for the comments
of Leslie Francis, Karen Engle, Erik Luna, and conference participants.

[FN2]. For a
concise description of the Jewish legal tradition and the sources it employs,
see Suzanne Last Stone, In Pursuit of the Counter-Text: The Turn to the Jewish
Legal Model in Contemporary American Legal Theory, 106 Harv. L. Rev. 813, 816
n.13 (1993). The ancient Jewish law sources are extremely terse and often
ambiguous; as a result, translations often differ radically. My translations
of Jewish law sources in this Article reflect my own imperfect understandings;
unless otherwise indicated, they rely on but may vary from the cited standard
translations where I am emphasizing a different reading.

The Torah, as I use the word in this Article, refers to the first five
books of the Hebrew Bible. The words are identical to the first five books of
the Christian Old Testament (within the vagaries of translation) but is a
significantly different book. Cf. Jorge Luis Borges, Pierre Menard, Author of
Don Quixote, in Ficciones (1962) (describing book with same words as, but
different meaning and significance than, Don Quixote). The word
"torah" can also more generally refer to the entire Hebrew Bible, or
to Jewish law in general.

[FN3].
Colson, supra note 1, at 3 (citations omitted). Yes, this is Chuck Colson of
Watergate fame. Dostoyevsky, unlike Colson, is quite aware of the complexity
of the problem. But I leave a discussion of the theology of Crime and
Punishment and The Brothers Karamazov to another day.

[FN5].
Isaiah 58:5-8 (denouncing those who observe ritual requirements of religion
rather than justice, read during Yom Kippur services). The trope is so central
a part of our culture, via Jesus' denunciation of the fundamentalists of his
age, that the very terms "hypocrite" and "sanctimonious"
have as their primary referents believers and practitioners of religion who do
not follow the basic codes of decent conduct towards humans.

[FN7]. Bad
people (and good people) often seek to wrap themselves in religious imagery,
sometimes so successfully that it is hard to separate the one from the other.
But it is hard to find an instance where the causality clearly runs from good
religion to good people or vice versa. Plenty of people have killed in the
name of their religion's ideal of peace and brotherhood.

[FN8].
Compare Genesis 1:27 (teaching basic equality and brotherhood by story of all
humankind descended from one set of parents), and Exodus 20:13 (barring
murder), with Deuteronomy 25:19 (cursing Amalek, requiring that entire tribe
be blotted out), and id. 20:16-17 (requiring that seven nations that inhabited
Canaan be exterminated). See generally Mishnah, Sanhedrin 4:5, translated in
Jacob Neusner, The Mishnah: A New Translation 591 (1988) (explaining story of
Adam's creation as teaching that whoever kills single human being has
committed crime similar to destroying entire world, for if Adam had been
killed, so would all his descendants); 2 Maimonides, The Commandments 269
(Charles B. Chavel trans., 1967) [hereinafter Maimonides, Commandments]
(listing bar on killing human being as Negative Commandment 289); 1 Maimonides,
Commandments, supra, at 200, 202 (listing Positive Commandment 187: to
exterminate the seven nations; and 188: to exterminate all seed of Amalek);
Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Kings 1:1, translated in The Code of Maimonides (Mishneh
Torah), Book 14: The Book of Judges 207 (Abraham M. Hershman trans., Yale
Judaica Series No. 3, 1949) [hereinafter Yale Judaica Series] (stating that
commandment to destroy seed of Amalek is one of three to be carried out upon
entry into the Land).

[FN9].
"In relation to" because some of the behavioral norms are
controversial and others may be observed in the breach or even by breaching
them. A High Reform Jewish man who deliberately attends synagogue bareheaded
to act out his rejection of halacha (Jewish law) is still acting in relation
to the halachic rule that his head must be covered so long as he has not
simply forgotten the norm. Similarly, Rabbinic Jewish law often preserves
biblical rules by reversing, modifying, criticizing, or interpreting them in
ways that seem radically nonobvious. The distinctive demand of the tradition
is that it not be forgotten even if it is not observed (or observable) in any
simplistic way.

[FN12].
See, e.g., Exodus 21:12, 21:15-17, 21:29, 22:18 (listing crimes-- including
murder, enslavement, hitting or cursing parents, allowing known dangerous
animal to kill someone, and witchcraft--for which criminal "shall surely
die"); id. 22:18 ("[A] witch shall not live."); Leviticus
20:10-16 (indicating same penalty for various sexual acts, including adultery,
various types of incest, man who beds another man in manner of woman, and
bestiality). Note that the Hebrew original (literally, "die shall
die"), unlike the King James translation, does not necessarily suggest
that the criminal shall die by human hands. See, e.g., Mishnah, Sanhedrin 9:6,
translated in Neusner, supra note 8, at 604 (describing debate regarding
whether particular crime is punished by court-ordered strangling or only by
Heaven); cf. Greenwood, Dworkin's
Dominions, supra note 10, at 613-14 (discussing Zohar, Bereshith 57 and
arguing that when God told Adam that he would die if he ate of tree of
knowledge, He meant that Adam would become mortal). In other places the
penalty is clearly meant to be carried out by humans. See, e.g., Deuteronomy
17:2 (decreeing death by stoning for proven idolatry); id. 21:18-21 (same, for
stubborn and rebellious son); id. 22:21 (same, for bride who had premarital
sex); id. 22:23 (same, for rape within city or both parties to adultery).

[FN13].
For examples of crimes punished by cutting off, see Leviticus 18:29 (decreeing
cutting off as penalty for committing abominations); id. 19:7 (same, for
eating shlemim sacrifice after second day); id. 20:18 (same, for man having
sex with woman during her period); Numbers 9:13 (same, for failing to observe
Passover).

[FN19].
There is some evidence that in practice during the biblical period, the
families of the victim and the criminal negotiated a settlement in lieu of the
Torah law punishment. Thus, Josephus's discussion of the "eye for an
eye" rule understands it as a background rule ordinarily not applied. See
Flavius Josephus, 4 Antiquities of the Jews 8.35.280, translated in William
Whiston, The Works of Josephus Complete and Unabridged 122 (1988) ("He
who maims a man shall undergo the same, being deprived of that limb whereof he
deprived the other, unless indeed the maimed man be willing to accept money;
for the law empowers the victim himself to assess the damage that has befallen
him and makes this concession, unless he would show himself too
severe."). As discussed below, the Talmud also encourages compromise in
lieu of the biblical law but, unlike Josephus, does not seem to accept the
possibility of a victim who "would show himself too severe"; an eye
for an eye is held only to refer to monetary compensation, and courts are
effectively barred from applying the Torah punishments. Babylonian Talmud,
Bava Kama 84a-b, translated in The Babylonian Talmud (R. Dr. I. Epstein ed.
& trans., 1988) [hereinafter Soncino].

[FN20].
The Torah makes clear that some procedure is necessary prior to human
punishment but does not set out the full details. See, e.g., Deuteronomy 13:15
(specifying requirements of diligent inquiry, cross examination, and truth);
id. 17:6 (requiring two witnesses).

[FN25].
See Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Sanhedrin 18:6, translated in Yale Judaica
Series, supra note 8, at 52 (providing this justification of rule). The Talmud
thus takes a view of confessions opposite that found in classic civil law,
which saw confession as the goal of every criminal procedure. Moreover, the
talmudic view is quite different from the modern American suspicion of
confession set out in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), and its
progeny. The American rule is based primarily on autonomy notions--
specifically, the fear that law enforcement
agents may coerce defendants into confessing. It has not been understood to
require searching inquiry into the truth value of confessions that are the
result of contract-like bargains even when the government offers quite
attractive terms. In contrast, Maimonides's justification for the talmudic
rule appears to be based primarily on truth concerns rather than autonomy: the
Sanhedrin rule rejects confessions regardless of the circumstances under which
they are given for fear not only of governmental coercion but also of
psychological disorders, social pressure and expectations, or even simple
mistakes of fact or law that might lead defendants to believe either that they
ought to confess or that they are in fact guilty.

[FN26].
Deuteronomy 17:10 (requiring capital court to sit in "the place that
Adonai chooses," understood to be Chamber of Hewn Stone at Temple);
Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 52b, translated in 18 Steinsaltz, supra note 22,
at 42-50 (allowing no executions after destruction of Temple and ruling that
death penalty could only be decreed while Temple was standing).

[FN28].
Ordination involved the laying on of hands by an ordained judge in a direct
sequence back to the investiture of Joshua in Numbers 27:23. See, e.g.,
Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Sanhedrin 4:1, translated in Yale Judaica Series,
supra note 8, at 13 (describing requirement).

[FN29].
Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 17a, translated in 15 Steinsaltz, supra note 22,
at 179-87 (listing qualifications for sitting on Sanhedrin, including height,
wisdom, good looks, age, knowledge of magic so as not to be fooled by
magicians, knowledge of seventy languages so that no translator is needed, and
ability to prove sheretz (swarming creature) pure based on Torah despite
Leviticus 11:29-39, which states that it is impure). This listing of seemingly
impossible qualifications is punctuated by the boast of one of the leading
rabbis of the age, Rav, that he could meet the requirement of proving that a
sheretz is clean and the anonymous editor's quick puncturing of the attempt:
do not think that this is a trivial requirement. See also Maimonides, Mishneh
Torah, Sanhedrin 2:1, 2:3, 2:6-7, translated in Yale Judaica Series, supra
note 8, at 7-8 (listing somewhat different set of qualifications, including
understanding of major branches of knowledge, not being old or eunuch
"because these have cruel streaks," not being childless "so
that he may be merciful," humbleness, and enough valor to rescue
oppressed from their oppressors).

[FN30].
Mishnah, Sanhedrin 4:2, translated in Neusner, supra note 8, at 590 (detailing
voting from junior to senior); id. at Sanhedrin 5:5, translated in Neusner,
supra note 8, at 593 (detailing procedure of waiting day after first argument
before convicting and of allowing changes of opinion only to acquit); id. at
Sanhedrin 1:6, translated in Neusner, supra note 8, at 584- 85 (requiring
majority of two for conviction).

[FN31].
Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 17a, translated in 15 Steinsaltz, supra note 22,
at 179-87 ("R. Kahana said: A Sanhedrin where each one saw fit to
convict, acquits him. Why? Because Gemara teaches us the rule to delay [the
sentence overnight] to find [arguments for] his innocence, and these are not
looking for it.").

[FN32].
Mishnah, Makkot 1:10, translated in Neusner, supra note 8, at 612. The Gemara
points out but does not resolve the ambiguity in R. Eleazar b. Azariah's
statement. Is it to be taken as a moral claim (a Sanhedrin that executes once
in seventy years deserves to be called destructive) or an empirical one
(executions were so infrequent that once in seventy years was enough to
warrant special distinction as a bloodthirsty court)? Babylonian Talmud,
Makkot 7a, translated in Soncino, supra note 19. Either interpretation,
however, suggests that executions were rare.

[FN33].
Babylonian Talmud, Avodah Zarah 8b, translated in Soncino, supra note 19
(discussing Sanhedrin's exile from Chamber of Hewn Stone forty years before
destruction of Temple "because when they saw that murderers were so
prevalent that they could not deal with them properly, they said, better we
should be exiled from place to place than find them guilty").

[FN34].
Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 13b-14a, translated in 15 Steinsaltz, supra note
22, at 133-46, describes the attempt of the Romans to end ordination in the
Mishnaic period. Apparently, ordination continued in some form well into the
talmudic period. See Robert M. Cover, The Folktales of Justice, in Narrative,
Violence, and the Law 188-95 (Martha Minow et al. eds., 1992) (stating that
ordination ended in fifth century and describing sixteenth century attempt to
revive it); Robert M. Cover, Bringing the Messiah Through the Law: A Case
Study, in Nomos XXX: Religion, Morality, and the Law 201, 201- 04 (J. Roland
Pennock & John W. Chapman eds., 1988).

[FN35].
Robert M. Cover, Violence and the Word, in Narrative, Violence, and the Law,
supra note 34, at 203, 213; Cover, supra note 6, at 40.

[FN36].
Elie Wiesel, Souls on Fire 51 (Marion Wiesel trans., 1972). Rebbe Wolfe's use
of the tradition illustrates that while the classical arguments are in the
context of capital punishment, they need not remain there. Thinkers who
question the collective right to execute the guilty, let alone the innocent,
must also question the right to beat, fine, or (in our system) imprison them.

[FN37].
The reference is to R. Eleazar's father, R. Shimon bar Yohai, and suggests
that the son was not following in the father's ways. See Babylonian Talmud,
Bava Metzia 83b, translated in 5 Steinsaltz, supra note 22, at 116 (containing
R. Steinsaltz's commentary on this passage).

[FN38].
Babylonian Talmud, Bava Metzia 83b, translated in 5 Steinsaltz, supra note 22,
at 113-19. For further discussion of this passage, see J. David Bleich, Jewish
Law and the State's Authority to Punish Crime, 12 Cardozo L. Rev. 829, 836-37
(1991). A similar story appears in the Jerusalem Talmud:

Ulla bar Koshav was wanted by the authorities for a capital offense and
fled to Lydda, the town of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi. The authorities came and
surrounded the area and threatened to ravage it if Ulla were not handed
over. Rabbi Joshua ben Levi then went to Ulla and convinced him to hand
himself over.

Up to that time, Elijah the Prophet had made regular visitations to Rabbi
Joshua, but then he stopped. Rabbi Joshua fasted repeatedly and Elijah came
to him. "Do you think," Elijah asked, "that I would reveal
myself to a moser [one who hands Jews over to the authorities]?" Rabbi
Joshua replied: "But I acted on the basis of a mishnah [a teaching of
the Mishnaic authorities, ordinarily binding on later talmudic
rabbis]!" Elijah answered: "But is that a mishnah of the
pious?" [thus suggesting that some laws should not be obeyed].

The issue in both stories may be one of cooperation with the (foreign)
authorities as much as hostility to criminal law as such. However, some
authorities find the key to the Ulla bar Koshav story to be whether Ulla was
in fact (or in Jewish law) worthy of the death penalty the authorities planned
for him. If he was, perhaps handing him over would be warranted.

For an example of a reading that clearly makes the issue one of justice to
Ulla (and to his victim, if any) rather than of the legitimacy of the
authorities, see Ephrayim Oshry, 5 She'elot U'Teshuvot, translated in 2 The
Jewish Political Tradition, supra (manuscript at ch. 16, on file with author)
(discussing different readings of Ulla story). R. Oshry's responsa concerns
whether it is permissible for the Jewish authorities to comply with a Nazi
order to select a small group to remain while all others will be deported to
their immediate deaths. See id. In that context, the innocence of the
"accused" and the illegitimacy of the authorities are
unquestionable. The sole issue is whether it is permissible to be complicit in
the killing of some people in order to save others--an issue raised by all
criminal law where guilt cannot be known with absolute certainty. Although R.
Oshry ultimately decides that one must do whatever one can to save whomever
one can, he by no means views the issue as simple, and most of the authorities
he cites suggest that one may not sacrifice an innocent Ulla even to save a
whole town. See id.

[FN39].
The passage immediately following the one quoted, supra text accompanying note
37, describes how R. Eleazar in a fit of pique arrests a laundryman for
calling him "vinegar son of wine" to his face; when he calms down
and regrets his unjust action, it turns out that the laundryman had committed
multiple violations of biblical law punishable by death by stoning followed by
hanging. Babylonian Talmud, Bava Metzia 83b, translated in 5 Steinsaltz, supra
note 22, at 113-19. So, R. Eleazar apparently has Heavenly assistance: even
when he violates the most basic principles of due process, justice is done.
Id.; see also 5 Steinsaltz, supra note 22, at 116 (explaining, based on
Rashi's commentary, that laundryman and his son had sexual relations with
betrothed maiden on Yom Kippur, thus violating at least three different
prohibitions). The text then continues with additional miraculous proof of R.
Eleazar's merit--his flesh, like the flesh of the perfectly righteous, does
not rot even when fat cut out of his body is left out in the sun. Babylonian
Talmud, Bava Metzia 83b, translated in 5 Steinsaltz, supra note 22, at 113-19.

[FN41].
Mishnah, Makkot 1:10, translated in Neusner, supra note 8, at 612; see supra
note 32 and accompanying text. I do not know of any evidence that capital
punishment is necessary or even effective, but supervision and punishment of
some variety is clearly essential. Rabban Gamliel's basic point seems
incontestable: without a criminal justice system willing to convict, crime
would increase. Modern research suggests that cooperation itself--the
foundation of society--may depend on the willingness to punish. Thus,
experimental evidence suggests that people generally are more likely to act
according to fairness norms than as "rational" (exploitative) profit
maximizers--except when they can exploit others anonymously. See Richard H.
Thaler, The Winner's Curse 11 (1992); infra note 59. Similarly, people seem
generally willing to punish free riders and defectors even when
"rational" self-interest would suggest free riding themselves. See,
e.g., Ernst Fehr & Simon Gachter, Altruistic Punishment in Humans, 415
Nature 137 passim (2002) (providing experimental evidence that humans will
"altruistically" punish free riders even at substantial personal
cost in order to sustain cooperation).

[FN42].
Mishnah, Avot 3:2, translated in Neusner, supra note 8, at 678. The saying
appears to echo Jeremiah 29:7, where the reference to a foreign (if not
necessarily illegitimate) government is clear.

[FN43].
Bleich, supra note 38, at 857; see also Gerondi (Ran), supra note 4, at 156-61
(describing divine purpose of Torah criminal law and noting that
"punishing criminals in this way alone [i.e., not punishing them] would
completely undermine political order: 'murderers would multiply"').
Jewish law thinkers suggested that the deficiencies of Torah criminal law
could be solved by a parallel system of royal law with harsher punishments and
more lenient procedures. See, e.g., id. at 157, 159 (arguing that king, unlike
Sanhedrin, may depart from Torah law "to perfect the political order and
[to meet] the needs of the hour" and may impose any punishment necessary
for political association); Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 46a, translated in 17
Steinsaltz, supra note 22, at 191-97 (noting that court may impose punishments
not in conformity with T2rah law to make hedge around Torah); 3 The Jewish
Political Tradition (Michael Walzer et al. eds. & trans., forthcoming
2004) (manuscript at chs. 23 & 24, on file with author) (translating
additional texts on this topic).

The precise relationship between the two criminal justice systems is
difficult and controversial. Suzanne Last Stone, for example, argues that the
lenient Siniatic system reflects the "special family relationship that
exists between God and Israel and not political communities ruled by an
earthly sovereign." Suzanne Last Stone, Justice, Mercy, and Gender in
Rabbinic Thought, 8 Cardozo Stud. L. & Literature 139, 169 (1996). She
contrasts this to the parallel Noahide
system binding on all humans which "corresponds with ... conventional
justice ... dedicated to the preservation of social order through pragmatic
and coercive means. It is exemplified by the attribute of strict justice and
is well suited to the violent nature of its subjects [i.e., humans]." Id.
Others have read the texts as originally a debate about a single (ideal)
system rather than about two parallel ones.

Nor is a king required in Israel to punish [criminals] ... in accordance
with the needs of the hour, because God gave that authority to the Great
Court, the Sanhedrin, as I explained [in my commentary above]. Furthermore,
God has informed us that if a judge who acts in accordance with just law
should acquit a wrongdoer, God Himself will punish the wicked person with
His great judgment, as it is written, "Keep far from a false charge; do
not charge death on those who are innocent and in the right, for I will not
acquit the wrongdoer" (Exodus 23:7). This means, "I will punish
him for anything for which you are unable to punish him legally." Thus,
it has been explained that these three things--that is, delivering them
through war, laying down laws and commandments, and determining occasional
punishment outside the law--are all performed by God for His people.
Therefore, God is their king, and they have no need for a [human] king for
anything.

[FN49].
Supra note 44; see also Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan 186 (C.B. MacPherson ed.,
Pelican Books 1968) (1651) ("[M]en have no pleasure, (but on the contrary
a good deal of griefe) in keeping company, where there is no power able to
over-awe them .... And the life of man, solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and
short.").

[FN53].
The formal structure of Jewish law makes clear, as our First Amendment ought
to in the American context, that the secular law must rely entirely on secular
justifications. Torah law can be justified as the word of God, but it must
follow the word of God all the way--and, as we have seen, that means that
convictions are impossible. The law of necessity, or the law of the king (as
it is generally referred to in Jewish law sources), must be defended in purely
human terms--not because it echoes in some way the Torah law, but because it
works to maintain society. For further discussion of the law of the king, see
3 The Jewish Political Tradition, supra note 43 (manuscript at ch. 23, on file
with author); Bleich, supra note 38, at 830-33.

[FN54].
See, e.g., Erik Luna, Punishment Theory, Holism, and the Procedural Conception
of Restorative Justice, 2003 Utah L. Rev. 205, 227-29. I am not a criminal law
scholar, so perhaps my evidence is suspect, but this supposedly conventional
wisdom is news to me. Criminal prosecutions are brought by the state in the
United States (although in some other Western legal systems, citizen
complainants have the right to force the prosecutor to commence an action or
to commence one on their own). But that alone is not enough to infer that the
United States or Western legal cultures generally view crimes as "public
wrongs" in which the state is the victim or that "[t]raditional
approaches ... overlook ... social relationships." Id. at 229. On the
contrary, standard liberal notions of the separation of state and society
strongly suggest that the state is merely vindicating an injury to society.

Overblown rhetoric aside, the restorative justice point is sound: American
political discourse, at least, has often underplayed the importance of social
relations in creating effective criminal law.

[FN57].
More specifically, the social stigma associated with punishment may deter.
See, e.g., Daniel S. Nagin, Criminal Deterrence Research at the Outset of the
Twenty-First Century, 23 Crime & Just. 1, 4 (1998) (reviewing research
indicating that punishment deters only to the extent that it creates social
stigma). In my terminology, socially-imposed violence without social stigma is
not perceived as punishment but as something else--oppression or simply a fact
of life.

[FN59].
Tom Tyler's work demonstrates the importance of perceived legitimacy in making
punishment effective. See Tom R. Tyler, Procedural Fairness and Compliance
With the Law, 133 Swiss J. Econ. & Stat. 219, 219-40 (1997). Ultimatum
games suggest the same. See, e.g., Thaler, supra note 41, at 11 (reporting
research indicating that students, other than economics students, free ride at
relatively low rates, especially when free riding is observable); Christine
Jolls, A Behavioral Approach to Law & Economics, 50 Stan. L. Rev. 1471,
1490 (1998) (describing Ultimatum game and research indicating that people
make offers they perceive as fair even in absence of sanctions); Joseph
Henrich et al., "Economic Man" in Cross-cultural Perspective:
Behavioral Experiments in 15 Small-scale Societies 13-20 (Santa Fe Inst.,
Working Paper No. 01-11-063, 2001), available at http:// www.santafe.edu/sfi/publications/wpabstract/200111063
(describing results of playing Ultimatum and related games in various
societies, generally supporting notion that behavior is far more strongly
influenced by normative views than by incentives or self-interest).

[FN60].
Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Sanhedrin 24:10, translated in Yale Judaica Series,
supra note 8, at 75 (stating that court may take actions it deems necessary
for "needs of the hour" if it does so "for the sake of
Heaven," and "without the honor of creation being light in its
eyes"); cf. id. at Sanhedrin 24:4, translated in Yale Judaica Series,
supra note 8, at 73 (stating that court is permitted to punish without
following Torah law if needed as temporary measure to fence and strengthen
law).

[FN66].
See, e.g., Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, Gifts to the Poor 8:10-13, translated in
The Code of Maimonides (Mishneh Torah), Book 7: The Book of Agriculture 82-83
(Isaac Klein trans., Yale Judaica Series No. 21, 1979) (ruling that ransoming
captives takes precedence over feeding poor or building synagogue, even if
captive is being held for failure to pay debt).

[FN67].
The medieval texts rarely discuss capital punishment in practical terms.
However, it is difficult to infer a principled objection from this since in
most countries at most times, Jewish communal privileges of self-government
did not extend to imposing capital punishment.

[FN70]. II
Samuel 11:1-12:23 (describing and condemning David's murder of Uriah); I Kings
15:5 (condemning David for matter of Uriah); id. 21:1-29 (condemning Ahab for
his behavior towards Naboth). Jewish law had great difficulty with the problem
of restraining the king. See, e.g., Mishnah, Sanhedrin 2:3, translated in 1
The Jewish Political Tradition, supra note 4, at 139 (stating that "the
King neither judges nor is judged"). Note that the Babylonian Talmud,
Sanhedrin 19a, limits this Mishnaic rule to unjust kings only, describing an
incident where the Sanhedrin's fear of Hasmonean King Yannai (ruled 103-76
B.C.E.) led to God striking judges dead. Id. Michael Walzer describes this
failure to construct a mechanism for supervising and limiting kings as the
"central problem of Jewish political thinking." 1 The Jewish
Political Tradition, supra note 4, at 141.

[FN71].
See, e.g., Jacob Weill, Shu"t Mahari Weill #157, translated in 3 The
Jewish Political Tradition, supra note 43 (manuscript at ch. 23, on file with
author) (stating, in fifteenth century ruling of German rabbi, that in light
of number of violent people who do not respect law, it is not necessary to
risk bodily injury to enforce court rulings).

[FN73].
Indeed, Braithwaite reports at least one instance where a restorative justice
scheme degenerated into "sham reparation," even including dictated
letters of apology. Id. at 21-22 (providing inconclusive evidence about
restorative justice programs' ability, in real life, to navigate conflict
between need for real mediation and need to reach predetermined just result).

[FN75].
Braithwaite reports that victims in Canberra received apologies in most cases
and apparently accepted them as genuine, since victims reported in similarly
large numbers that they left the conferences less angry. Braithwaite, supra
note 1, at 24.

[FN76].
Compare Exodus 12:29 (describing mixed multitude that went up from Egypt
together with children of Israel), with Plato, Menexenus 237-38 (R.G. Bury
trans., 1966) (describing traditional Athenian belief that first Athenians
sprang from ground of Athens).

[FN82].
Or, in the case of murder, by people who have simply lost their tempers.
Making fatal weapons less readily available would give them time to calm down.
This, not some higher quality of humanity, more effective deterrence, or even
lower levels of anger or alienation, strikes me as the main reason for Great
Britain's lower murder rates (in a society that seems generally less law
abiding and more violent than our own, at least if soccer games are any
indication).

The homicide rate in England and Wales has almost doubled in the last
thirty years and stood at 14.4 homicides per million people as of 2000-01.
Home Office, Criminal Statistics England and Wales 2000, at 78 tbl.4.1
[hereinafter England and Wales Statistics], available at http://www.archive.official-
documents.co.uk/document/cm53/5312/cm5312.htm (adjusted to exclude fifty-eight
Chinese nationals who collectively suffocated in lorry en route to Britain).
In comparison, the United States murder and non-negligent homicide rate for
2000 was three to four times higher: 55 homicides per million people,
dramatically down from 94 per million in 1990. Uniform Crime Reports, Oct. 22,
2001, at 14. The United States definition appears to be somewhat narrower, so
the true difference may be greater than the statistics suggest.

In sharp contrast to this dramatic difference in homicide rates, overall
violent crime rates in the two countries appear to be fairly similar. England
and Wales had overall violent crime rates in the range of 4,940-5,740 per
million in the early 1990s until a change in offense coverage raised the rate
to 11,600- 13,920 from 1998-99 through 2000-01. England and Wales Statistics,
supra, at 40 tbl.2.3. In comparison, the United States rate ranged from
5,247-7,581 per million during that period. U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical
Abstract of the United States: 2001, at 182 tbl.291, available at http://
www.census.gov/prod/www/statistical-abstract-us.html. The dramatic change in
the English rate due to a change in collection method suggests that the
differences between the United States and England rates of overall violent
crime are not meaningful although the trend lines--crime increasing in England
and decreasing in the United States--more likely are.

________

World-Crisis.Com: 11/5/03

http://cooperativeresearch.org/phorum5/read.php?3,133

BRITISH BROADSHEET LINKS MOSSAD TO 9/11

Meil Mackay

There was ruin and terror in Manhattan, but, over the Hudson River in New
Jersey, a handful of men were dancing. As the World Trade Centre burned and
crumpled, the five men celebrated and filmed the worst atrocity ever committed
on American soil as it played out before their eyes. Who do you think they were?
Palestinians? Saudis? Iraqis, even? Al-Qaeda, surely? Wrong on all counts. They
were Israelis – and at least two of them were Israeli intelligence agents,
working for Mossad, the equivalent of MI6 or the CIA.

Their discovery and arrest that morning is a matter of indisputable fact. To
those who have investigated just what the Israelis were up to that day, the case
raises one dreadful possibility: that Israeli intelligence had been shadowing
the al-Qaeda hijackers as they moved from the Middle East through Europe and
into America where they trained as pilots and prepared to suicide-bomb the
symbolic heart of the United States. And the motive? To bind America in blood
and mutual suffering to the Israeli cause.

After the attacks on New York and Washington, the former Israeli Prime Minister,
Benjamin Netanyahu, was asked what the terrorist strikes would mean for
USA-Israeli relations. He said: “It’s very good.”
Then he corrected himself, adding: “Well, it’s not good, but it will
generate immediate sympathy [for Israel from Americans].”
If Israel’s closest ally felt the collective pain of mass civilian deaths at
the hands of terrorists, then Israel would have an unbreakable bond with the
world’s only hyperpower and an effective free hand in dealing with
the Palestinian terrorists who had been murdering its innocent civilians as the
second Intifada dragged on throughout 2001.

The PIMP of the Great
whore...unrestrained murder...by peace of course

It’s not surprising that the New Jersey housewife who first spotted the five
Israelis and their white van wants to preserve her anonymity. She’s insisted
that she only be identified as Maria. A neighbour in her apartment building had
called her just after the first strike on the Twin Towers. Maria grabbed a pair
of binoculars and, like millions across the world, she watched the horror of the
day unfold. As she gazed at the burning towers, she noticed a group of men
kneeling on the roof of a white van in her parking lot. Here’s her
recollection: “They seemed to be taking a movie. They were like happy, you
know … they didn’t look shocked to me. I thought it was strange.”

Neither was Bushkevik....schocked as
he read about the AKT....the goat...the Baphomet...the ram from the west

Maria jotted down the van’s registration and called the police. The FBI was
alerted and soon there was a state-wide all points bulletin put out for the
apprehension of the van and its occupants. The cops traced the number,
establishing that it belonged to a company called Urban Moving. Police Chief
John Schmidig said: “We got an alert to be on the lookout for a white
Chevrolet van with New Jersey registration and writing on the side. Three
individuals were seen celebrating in Liberty State Park after the impact. They
said three people were jumping up and down.”

By 4pm on the afternoon of September 11, the van was spotted near New Jersey’s
Giants stadium. A squad car pulled it over and inside were five men in their
20s. They were hustled out of the car with guns levelled at their heads and
handcuffed. In the car was $4700 in cash, a couple of foreign passports and a
pair of box cutters – the concealed Stanley Knife-type blades used by the 19
hijackers who’d flown jetliners into the World Trade Centre and Pentagon just
hours before. There were also fresh pictures of the men standing with the
smouldering wreckage of the Twin Towers in the background. One image showed a
hand flicking a lighter in front of the devastated buildings, like a fan at a
pop concert.

The driver of the van then told the arresting officers: “We are Israeli. We
are not your problem. Your problems are our
problems. The Palestinians are the problem.” His name was Sivan
Kurzberg. The other four passengers were Kurzberg’s brother Paul, Yaron Shmuel,
Oded Ellner and Omer Marmari. The men were dragged off to prison and transferred
out of the custody of the FBI’s Criminal Division and into the hands of their
Foreign Counterintelligence Section – the bureau’s anti-espionage squad.

High treasonist, who need to be
Hanged NOW

A warrant was issued for a search of the Urban Moving premises in Weehawken in
New Jersey. Boxes of papers and computers were removed. The FBI questioned the
firm’s Israeli owner, Dominik Otto Suter, but when agents returned to
re-interview him a few days later, he was gone. An employee of Urban Moving said
his co-workers had laughed about the Manhattan attacks the day they happened.
“I was in tears,” the man said. “These guys were joking and that bothered
me. These guys were like, ‘Now America knows
what we go through.’”

the beginning of
sorrows

Vince Cannistraro, former chief of operations for counter-terrorism with the
CIA, says the red flag went up among investigators when it was discovered that
some of the Israelis’ names were found in a search of the national
intelligence database. Cannistraro says many in the USA intelligence community
believed that some of the Israelis were working for Mossad and there was
speculation over whether Urban Moving had been “set up or exploited for the
purpose of launching an intelligence operation against radical Islamists”.
This makes it clear that there was no suggestion whatsoever from within American
intelligence that the Israelis were colluding with the 9/11 hijackers – simply
that the possibility remains that they knew the attacks were going to happen,
but effectively did nothing to help stop them.

After the owner vanished, the offices of Urban Moving looked as if they’d been
closed down in a big hurry. Mobile phones were littered about, the office phones
were still connected and the property of at least a dozen clients were stacked
up in the warehouse. The owner had cleared out his family home in New Jersey and
returned to Israel.

Two weeks after their arrest, the Israelis were still in detention, held on
immigration charges. Then a judge ruled that they should be deported. But the
CIA scuppered the deal and the five remained in custody for another two months.
Some went into solitary confinement, all underwent two polygraph tests and at
least one underwent up to seven lie detector sessions before they were
eventually deported at the end of November 2001. Paul Kurzberg refused to take a
lie detector test for 10 weeks, but then failed it. His lawyer said he was
reluctant to take the test as he had once worked for Israeli intelligence in
another country.

Hear....people...hear

Nevertheless, their lawyer, Ram Horvitz, dismissed the allegations as “stupid
and ridiculous”. Yet USA government sources still maintained that the Israelis
were collecting information on the fundraising activities of groups like Hamas
and Islamic Jihad. Mark Regev, of the Israeli embassy in Washington, would have
none of that and he said the allegations were “simply false”. The men
themselves claimed they’d read about the World Trade Centre attacks on the
internet, couldn’t see it from their office and went to the parking lot for a
better view. Their lawyers and the embassy say their ghoulish and sinister
celebrations as the Twin Towers blazed and thousands died were due to youthful
foolishness.
Would friends of the USA jump for joy at the murder of thousands of its
citizens?

naw

The respected New York Jewish newspaper, The Forward, reported in March 2002,
however, that it had received a briefing on the case of the five Israelis from a
USA official who was regularly updated by law enforcement agencies. This is what
he told The Forward: “The assessment was that Urban
Moving Systems was a front for the Mossad and operatives employed by
it.” He added that “the conclusion of the FBI was that they were spying on
local Arabs”, but the men were released because they “did not know anything
about 9/11”.

Back in Israel, several of the men discussed what happened on an Israeli talk
show. One of them made this remarkable comment: “The fact of the matter is we
are coming from a country that experiences terror daily. Our
purpose was to document the event.” But how can you document an
event unless you know it is going to happen?

We are now deep in conspiracy theory territory. But there is more than a little
circumstantial evidence to show that Mossad – whose motto is “By way of
deception, thou shalt do war” – was spying on Arab extremists in the USA and
may have known that September 11 was in the offing, yet decided to withhold
vital information from their American counterparts which could have prevented
the terror attacks.

3000 deaths and counting daily...into
the tens of thousands

Following September 11, 2001, more than 60 Israelis were taken into custody
under the Patriot Act and immigration laws. One highly placed investigator told
Carl Cameron of Fox News that there were “tie-ins” between the Israelis and
September 11; the hint was clearly that they’d gathered intelligence on the
planned attacks but kept it to themselves. The Fox News source refused to give
details, saying: “Evidence linking these Israelis to 9/11 is classified. I
cannot tell you about evidence that has been gathered. It’s classified
information.” Fox News is not noted for its condemnation of Israel; it’s a
ruggedly patriotic news channel owned by Rupert Murdoch
and was President Bush’s main cheerleader in the war on terror and the
invasion of Iraq.

Another group of around 140 Israelis were detained prior to September 11, 2001,
in the USA as part of a widespread investigation into a suspected espionage ring
run by Israel inside the USA. Government documents refer to the spy ring as an
“organised intelligence-gathering operation” designed to “penetrate
government facilities”. Most of those arrested had served in the Israeli armed
forces – but military service is compulsory in Israel. Nevertheless, a number
had an intelligence background.

The first glimmerings of an Israeli spying exercise in the USA came to light in
spring 2001, when the FBI sent a warning to other federal agencies alerting them
to be wary of visitors calling themselves “Israeli art students” and
attempting to bypass security at federal buildings in order to sell paintings. A
Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) report suggested the Israeli calls “may
well be an organised intelligence-gathering activity”. Law enforcement
documents say that the Israelis “targeted and penetrated military bases” as
well as the DEA, FBI and dozens of government facilities, including secret
offices and the unlisted private homes of law enforcement and intelligence
personnel.

A number of Israelis questioned by the authorities said they were students from
Bezalel Academy of Art and Design, but Pnina Calpen, a spokeswoman for the
Israeli school, did not recognise the names of any Israelis mentioned as
studying there in the past 10 years. A federal report into the so-called art
students said many had served in intelligence and electronic signal intercept
units during their military service.

According to a 61-page report, drafted after an investigation by the DEA and the
USA immigration service, the Israelis were organized into cells of four to six
people.

assassination squads?

The significance of what the Israelis were doing didn’t emerge until
after September 11, 2001, when a report by a French intelligence agency noted
“according to the FBI, Arab terrorists and suspected terror cells lived in
Phoenix, Arizona, as well as in Miami and Hollywood, Florida, from December 2000
to April 2001 in direct proximity to the Israeli spy cells”.

The report contended that Mossad agents were spying on Mohammed Atta and Marwan
al-Shehi, two of leaders of the 9/11 hijack teams. The pair had settled in
Hollywood, Florida, along with three other hijackers, after leaving Hamburg –
where another Mossad team was operating close by.

Hollywood in Florida is a town of just 25,000 souls. The French intelligence
report says the leader of the Mossad cell in Florida rented apartments “right
near the apartment of Atta and al-Shehi”. More than a third of the Israeli
“art students” claimed residence in Florida. Two other Israelis connected to
the art ring showed up in Fort Lauderdale. At one time, eight of the hijackers
lived just north of the town.

Put together, the facts do appear to indicate that Israel knew that 9/11, or at
least a large-scale terror attack, was about to take place on American soil, but
did nothing to warn the USA. But that’s not quite true. In August 2001, the
Israelis handed over a list of terrorist suspects – on it were the names of
four of the September 11 hijackers. Significantly, however, the warning said the
terrorists were planning an attack “outside the United States”.

The Israeli embassy in Washington has dismissed claims about the spying ring as
“simply untrue”. The same denials have been issued repeatedly by the five
Israelis seen high-fiving each other as the World Trade Centre burned in front
of them. Their lawyer, Ram Horwitz, insisted his clients were not intelligence
officers. Irit Stoffer, the Israeli foreign minister, said the allegations were
“completely untrue”. She said the men were arrested because of “visa
violations”, adding: “The FBI investigated those cases because of 9/11.”

Jim Margolin, an FBI spokesman in New York, implied that the public would never
know the truth, saying: “If we found evidence of unauthorised intelligence
operations that would be classified material.” Yet, Israel has long been
known, according to USA administration sources, for “conducting the most
aggressive espionage operations against the USA of any USA ally”. Seventeen
years ago, Jonathan Pollard, a civilian working for the American Navy, was
jailed for life for passing secrets to Israel. At first, Israel claimed Pollard
was part of a rogue operation, but the government later took responsibility for
his work.

It has always been a long-accepted agreement among allies – such as Britain
and America or America and Israel – that neither country will jail a
“friendly spy” nor shame the allied country for espionage. Chip Berlet, a
senior analyst at Boston’s Political Research Associates and an expert in
intelligence, says: “It’s a backdoor agreement between allies that says that
if one of your spies gets caught and didn’t do too much harm, he goes home. It
goes on all the time. The official reason is always visa violation.”

What we are left with, then, is fact sullied by innuendo. Certainly, it seems,
Israel was spying within the borders of the United States and it is equally
certain that the targets were Islamic extremists probably linked to September
11. But did Israel know in advance that the Twin Towers would be hit and the
world plunged into a war without end; a war which would give Israel the power to
strike its enemies almost without limit? That’s a conspiracy theory too far,
perhaps. But the unpleasant feeling that, in this age of spin and secrets, we do
not know the full and unadulterated truth won’t go away. Maybe we can guess,
but it’s for the history books to discover and decide.

[This article is followed by hotly argued and LENGTHY commenters’ discussion
(with many posts) about Israel and Zionism, US policy on Israel/Palestine, and
related topics, that is well worth wading through, to understand the passions
and history that have led to war in the Middle East today.]

_____

The Obedient Canadian
Ishmaelite Nohides..and their sub Talmudic laws

Jewish Group Supports
Oppressive "Sharia" Law
On Canadian Muslims
Mariana Jiménez
The Globe and Mail
9-9-4

The debate around the introduction of sharia-based
tribunals in Ontario intensified yesterday, with B'nai
Brith Canada endorsing the idea and a group of
Queen's Park protesters condemning it as a tool to oppress women.

B'nai Brith, a Jewish human-rights organization, argued
that Jewish religious courts have
worked well under Ontario's 1991 Arbitration
Act and Muslim-based courts will too, especially if the act
is amended to introduce additional safeguards to ensure participation is
voluntary and informed.

"We have tried to reduce the hype around the
proposal to implement sharia law tribunals in Ontario. Sharia-based
courts will not bring the Taliban to Canada," said John Syrtash, a
family lawyer with B'nai Brith.

The organization presented its submission to Marion
Boyd, former NDP attorney-general, who is reviewing the use of private
arbitration, including religious-based arbitration, at the request of
the Ontario government.

Why Arbitration? Why, it reduces
Tort, and benefits the money changers, in their exclusive favor. See
Abritration sprouting in "AMARAKA". All goyim will become
bondservants to the shemgods

The issue is a divisive one. At least two Muslim
groups, the Council on American-Islamic Relations Canada and the Muslim
Canadian Congress, oppose the idea of sharia-based courts. Yesterday,
about 100 protesters called the proposed tribunals "the dark side
of multiculturalism."

Universal Noahidism of the Communitarian
"Third Wave"

Homa Arjomand, co-ordinator of the International
Campaign Against Sharia Court in Canada, said she has counselled many
Muslim women whose rights were abused during informal arbitration by
Muslim leaders. In the case of one family who turned to their Markham,
Ont., mosque for resolution of a dispute, the results were not positive
for the wife and adolescent daughter. The woman, of Pakistani origin,
and her 15-year-old daughter were "returned" to Pakistan
against their will, Ms. Arjomand said, and the daughter was placed in
the custody of an uncle and preparations were made for an arranged
marriage.

The father then married a 19-year-old woman and brought
her to Canada.

"Was the mother forced to leave the country? We
don't know what really happened here," said Ms. Arjomand, a
human-rights activist from Iran who has worked in Toronto for several
years counselling abused women and children in the Muslim community.

"Many of my clients have been victimized by this
arbitration law, and I have helped some to escape abusive relationships,
polygamy and child marriages,"
she said.

Ontario's Arbitration Act provides for voluntary faith-based
arbitration, which allows Muslims, Jews and members of other
faiths to use the principles of their religion to settle matters such as
divorce, inheritance and custody issues outside the court system.

Sharia is based on the Koran, and interpretations of it
can vary widely. Under sharia, male heirs receive a greater share of an
inheritance than female heirs; husbands, not
wives, may initiate divorce proceedings; and in divorce
cases, fathers are generally awarded custody of daughters who have
reached the age of puberty.

"Women will always get a worse deal under sharia.
It is inherently discriminatory and divisive," said Tarek Fatah,
with the Muslim Canadian Congress. "It is
flea-market justice."

B'nai Brith, however, says that certain amendments to
the act could help safeguard the rights of the vulnerable, such as
women.

In their brief, the organization recommends that the
parties involved in arbitration obtain a certificate of independent
legal advice to ensure they are informed of their rights. The
Canadian Jewish Congress says it is neither favours nor opposes sharia-based
tribunals.

Either the Goyim become
obedient or we will send Shem-eon and Peretz (Pharez) to slay them...saith the
son's of satans shemagogues. Noahide Ishmael NOW say the rib-eyes of satan's
covenant with death and hell

Right-wing
rabbis urge tougher war on terror, even if civilians get hurtBy Ellis Shuman September 8, 2004

A group of right-wing rabbis, including heads of
West Bank yeshivot and members of the Yesha Council of Jewish Communities in
Judea, Samaria, and the Gaza Strip, called on the government to wage a tougher
war on terror, even if Palestinian civilians get hurt
in the process.

The rabbis, led by former MK and Chairman of the popular Bnei Akiva youth
movement Haim Druckman (National Religious Party), presented a letter to Prime
Minister Ariel Sharon, Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz and IDF Chief of Staff
Lt.-Gen. Moshe Yaalon.

The rabbis' letter came one day after a pinpoint IAF air strike killed 15 Hamas
terrorists at a Hamas training camp. The IDF frequently calls off planned
attacks if there is a possibility that Palestinian civilians would be harmed.

"In a time of war as in today, we cannot
differentiate between [civilian] population to an Army," the
letter read. "We cannot continue to use what is known as 'Christian
morality,' which prefers the life
of our enemies over our own," the letter continued.

"Should the IDF fight the enemy, if civilians [on the other side] will be
killed, or should the IDF refrain from fighting, and thus endanger our
civilians?" the rabbis asked in their letter. In response to the rhetorical
question, the rabbis quoted the sage Rabbi
Akiva who said that "Our lives come first."

Rib-eye Akiva of Talmud
Bavli the oral tradition of Mishnah Torah the Perversion of mankind to their god
satan the tetragrammaton of illumination.

"Christians preaching 'turn the other cheek' will
not cause us to panic, and we will not view favorably those who
prefer the lives of our enemies over our own lives," the letter said.

Sephardic Chief Rabbi Shlomo Amar told Channel One television that he backs the
right-wing rabbis. "We are forced to fight them
for as long as they refuse to accept the path of peace,"

Until they bow and accept
the shemgods Noahide laws of Satan

Amar said. "We fight, but our hand must
always be ready to offer peace. It is not just a mitzvah, but a duty, to save
one's life," Amar said.

"According to Christian law, one must turn the other cheek;

The Fullness of the ten Commandments
LOVE

but according to Jewish law, we must first and
foremost protect ourselves.

Eye for an eye of Talmud Bavli

If 10 civilians are killed so that we can
save the life of one IDF soldier - so be it," said Yesha Rabbis' Council
secretary Yishai Ba'abad.

The Talmud
also states the penalty for disobedience: "One
additional element of greater severity is that violation of any one
of the seven laws subjects the Noahide
to capital punishment by decapitation.(Sanh. 57A)"

from satan's Talmudic
"protocols"

7. We appear on the scene as alleged saviours
of the worker from this oppression when we propose to him to enter the ranks of
our fighting forces - Socialists, Anarchists, Communists - to whom we always
give support in accordance with an alleged brotherly rule (of the solidarity of
all humanity) of our SOCIAL MASONRY. The
aristocracy, which enjoyed by law the labor of the workers, was interested in
seeing that the workers were well fed, healthy, and
strong. We are interested in just the opposite - in
the diminution, the KILLING OUT OF THE GOYIM.Our power is in the chronic shortness of food and
physical weakness of the worker because by all that this implies he is made the
slave of our will, and he will not find in his own authorities either strength
or energy to set against our will. Hunger creates the right of capital to rule
the worker more surely than it was given to the aristocracy by the legal
authority of kings.

Each
victim on our
side is worth in the sight of God a
thousand goyim.

The rabbis' letter found backing among right-wing Knesset members. "We
cannot tie up the hands of our soldiers," said MK Yehiel Hazan (Likud).
"If we don't strike at terrorists wherever they may be found, our innocent
civilians will be harmed," he said.

Mt:27:25:

Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children.

Left-wing politicians, however, rejected any possible suggestion of
intentionally harming innocent civilians. MK Yossi Sarid (Yahad) said
that there was little difference between the right-wing rabbis and the
ayatollahs of Iran.

MK Roman Bronfman (Yahad) urged Attorney-General Menachem (Meni) Mazuz to
"immediately open investigation" against the rabbis who had signed the
letter. "They are inciting the murder of innocent
civilians," he said.

Groups of right-wing rabbis have previously called on IDF soldiers to refuse any
possible orders they receive calling to dismantle Jewish communities, and they
have also said it was forbidden for Gaza settlers to accept compensation in
exchange for leaving their homes.

If the Bush campaign has its way, the 2004
presidential election will be decided by fear.

And the AKT...the FEAR...will easily place
the Kohen Gadol, High Priest of Satan's Shemagogue

Strategically speaking, the approach is brilliant.
Fear blinds people. It can cause intelligent, thoughtful individuals to
turn off their brains and revert to instinct, and that instinct tells
them to seek a strong leader who can protect them. When no such leader
exists, sufficiently frightened people will even invent one, projecting
an imaginary strength onto figures who are in reality mediocre.

And unfortunately, this administration is all too
adept at provoking fear. Two years ago, by warning that mushroom clouds
might soon rise over American cities and that Iraqi unmanned aerial
vehicles might spread smallpox over our neighborhoods, they frightened
this nation into a misbegotten and mismanaged invasion of Iraq that has
so far cost the lives of more than 1,000
of our finest men and women, and in the process has made us
significantly less secure.

Now they're at it again. As Vice President Dick Cheney
put it Tuesday, "it's absolutely essential that eight
weeks from today, on Nov. 2, we make the
right choice, because if we make the wrong choice then the danger is
that we'll get hit again and we'll be hit in a way that will be
devastating from the standpoint of the United States."

Vote for us or die.

The claim is particularly charming given the testimony
by ex-CIA Director George Tenet that in the late summer and early fall
of 2001, "the system was blinking red" with intelligence signs
warning of an impending terror attack by Osama bin Laden. Yet the
administration that now sells itself as our
only salvation against the bloodthirsty hordes did nothing.
President Bush didn't even interrupt his vacation.

That doesn't mean that the attacks of Sept. 11 were
the fault of the Bush administration. But it ought to be cause for a
little humility.

hahahahhahahhahah

Fear is useful for another reason: It makes people
more docile and less tolerant of others who dare to question
authority.

yep, ask me.

If you're the one in authority, that makes fear a
valuable commodity. In his keynote address to the Republican National
Convention -- a speech in which the key note was fear -- Zell Miller
played upon that human foible, bitterly charging that "the
Democrats' manic obsession to bring down our commander in chief"
was weakening the nation. The Democrats' crime? In
an election year, they actually criticize the president.

Maybe it has slipped the senator's mind, but this is
still the United States of America. Even in the darkest moments of our
republic, when it was rent by civil war and when it was fighting for
survival against both Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, we still held
elections, and loyal Americans still debated and argued about who was
best-suited to lead them.

Of course, Miller has never been much for tolerating
the opinions of others. A few months ago, he got so angry at a column I
had written that I got word back that he wanted to shoot me. At the time
I took it as a playful joke, part of the behind-the-scenes banter that
sometimes humanizes this business. But after watching an angry Miller
all but challenge talk-show host Chris Matthews to a duel, telling
Matthews that he yearned to "get a little closer up into your
face," I realize he meant it more seriously..

(Despite the senator's professed affection for getting
in people's faces, I should note that he did not deliver his angry
message to me in person, or even by telephone or letter. He had his
press secretary do it for him.)

The truth is, there's little reason to be terrified.
The threat that faces us is certainly real, and it must be met with
conviction, strength and wisdom. We need to hunt down terrorists and kill
them as quickly as possible, while ensuring that we don't create even
more terrorists in the process. But in the scale of threats this nation
has faced in the past, this one is well within our capacity to handle.

It's the goal of terrorists to make us terrified; we
don't need leaders eager to help that process along. If somebody has to
frighten you out of your wits to get your vote, it ought to tell you
something.

Jesus the Temple of Sion, God's Holy Mountain in
Heaven, the Temple which the chasidic Pharisees thought to tear down, but
who was raised on the third day, the ONLY Lamb of God the Father ever, ever
needed the Everlasting Holy Covenant, whom these chasidim Chabad Lubavitch
rabid rabbi's are seeking to establish their satanic flesh Kingdom against

Jesus the Christ the Lord, the KING of KINGS and
LORD of LORDS, the Alpha and the OMEGA the IAM the First and the Last, who
has since the beginning inherited everything of the Father, has and forever
will be the ONLY KING, and he is not coming to be a king, BUT IS KING to as
many as have faith, who no the Lie of the flesh Millennium of deception. For
he is forever the KING in SION. Flesh zion he does not covet of the flesh,
but man would have it he be in man's image

He will divide the Jews in Israel into their original tribal
portions in the land. During this time Gog,
king of Magog,
will attack Israel.

Now understand this people, where is Armegeddon?
For their IS No Armegeddon and a flesh...another chance......but is a lie of
the sons of satan who slew the Fathers messengers the Prophets, who
Crucified the LORD ALMIGHTY, who killed his disciples, and who seek to slay
his saints, for they know they worship satan, do not be deceived that the
Bible has not been tampered, for they are not in Fear of God the Father, but
they know they worship that Illuminated Tetragrammaton....Lucifer

Beware of the scribes and the Chasidic Chabad
Lubavitch Pharisees who deceives mankind unto their g-d......who is no god.
The WORD and the KINGDOM is in the Heart, and was sealed at Calvary.

Magog
will fight a great battle, in which many will die on both sides, but G-d
will intervene and save the Jews.

People they are calling GULF I and GULF two Gog and
Magog, they are pitting Judeo-Churchinsanity against Ishmael in their
created Terrorism and their shemgod wars and very soon...NOVEMBER 2004 to
Jan. 2005 they hope to trigger the last war on earth where once again as WWI
and WWII their flesh zion benefited by proxy

G-d, having vanquished this final enemy once and for all, will
accordingly banish all evil from human existence.

God and His Father, who are ONE will Harvest these
who are responsible for all who are slain and cast them into the wine press
of his Great and terrible wrath, and destroy all they who are anti-Christ,
who hate him and who crucified him....the unbelievers who slew his saints

After the year 6000 (in the Jewish calendar), the seventh millennium
will be an era of holiness, tranquility, spiritual life, and worldwide
peace, called the Olam Haba ("Future World"), where
all people will know God directly.

the Lie of HELL the Covenant with
Death and hell which the Father dis-anulled

Their False Prophets of Baal
deception which all whose names are not written in the Lambs Book of life
will fall for for they denied the truth and went to the fables of the jews....Judeo-Churchizionity
and became anti-Jesus the Lord God

The simple meaning of the words of the prophets appears to imply that the
war of Gog and Magog[Yechezkal ch. 38] will take place at the beginning of the
Messianic age.

Here is how they created Armageddon and a false
flesh 1000 years, and they use the Prophets of God the Father to deceive
mankind when they themselves slew them, for their robber god

Before the war of Gog
and Magog, a prophet
will arise to rectify Israel's conduct and prepare their hearts [for the
Redemption], as it is written: [Malachi 3:23] "Behold, I
am sending you Eliyah(u) [6] [before the advent of the
great and awesome Day of G-d]."

Schneerson their beloved and very dead chasidic
Chabad Lubavitch rebbe in which the first Bushkevik regime made the Noahide
Laws the Laws of "Amaraka". The second Bushkevik did the great AKT
of Evil to Usher in the Kohen Gadol, Johan Peretz Kohen

He will not come [in order] to declare the pure, impure, nor to declare
the impure, pure; nor [will he come in order] to disqualify the lineage of
those presumed to be of flawless descent, nor to validate lineage which is
presumed to be blemished. Rather, [he will come in order] to establish peace
in the world; as [the above prophecy] continues [Malachi 3:24],
"He will bring back the hearts of the fathers to the children."

He will come in his own name, as the Lord, shewing
that he is God, exalting himself above all which is worshipped of GOD

Some of the Sages say that Eliyahu will appear [immediately] before the
coming of Mashiach.

Matthew 11:

10: For this is he, of whom it is written, Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee.
11: Verily I say unto you, Among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist: notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he.
12: And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force.
13: For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.
14: And if ye will receive it, this is Elias, which was for to come.
15: He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.

All these and similar matters cannot be [clearly] known by man until they
occur, for they are undefined in the words of the prophets. Even the Sages
have no established tradition regarding these matters, beyond what is
implied by the verses; hence there is a divergence of opinion among them.

Thus they do lie tremendously

Col:1:26:

Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints:

In any case, neither the sequence of these events nor their precise
details are among the fundamental principles of the faith. One should not
occupy himself at length with the aggadot and midrashim that deal with these
and similar matters, nor should he deem them of prime importance, for they
bring one to neither the awe nor the love [of G-d].

for they hope to have man ignorant of their
deception, but they HAVE FAILED as it is written

Similarly, one should not try to calculate the appointed time [for the
coming of Mashiach]. Our Sages declared: [Sanhedrin 97b]
"May the spirits of those who attempt to calculate the final time [of
Mashiach's coming] expire!" Rather, one should await [his coming] and
believe in the general conception of the matter, as we have explained.

And these so called planners these chasidic
prophets of Baal are condemned into outer darkness in the PIT with their
flesh Moshiach for their whoredom and Blasphemy against the Word of God the
Creator

3. During the Era of the King Mashiach, once his kingdom has been
established and all of Israel has gathered around him, the entire [nation's]
line of descent will be established on the basis of his words, through the
prophetic spirit which will rest upon him. As it is written [Loc.
cit., v. 3], "He shall sit as a refiner and purifier."

Thus they lose the Kingdom of Heaven Sion and the
KING of KINGS whoreigns forever

He will purify the lineage of the Levites first, stating that "This
one is a priest of defined lineage" and "This one is a Levite of
defined lineage."

he will separate his little gods before he consumes
them

Those whose lineage he does not recognize will be relegated to the
status of Israelites. This is implied by the following verse: [Ezra
2:63] "The governor said to them, '[They shall not eat of the
most holy things] until a priest arises [who will wear] the Urim and Tumim.'"
From this verse one can infer that the genealogy of those presumed to be of
unquestioned [priestly and levitical] lineage will be traced by means of the
prophetic spirit, and those found to be of such lineage will be made known.

Useless Genealogies of flesh when the flesh will
indeed profit man nothing on that Great and Terrible Day of the Lord's wrath

He will define the lineage of the Israelites according to their tribe
alone; i.e., he will make known each person's tribal origin, stating that
"This one is from this tribe" and "This one is from another
tribe." However, concerning a person who is presumed to be of
unblemished lineage, he will not state that "He is illegitimate,"
or "He is of slave lineage," for the law rules that once a family
has become intermingled [within the entire Jewish people], they may remain
intermingled.

There is ONLY One FOLD by Faith whether jew or
greek, for they are no longer of any tribe, but the Fold of the Christ.

4. The Sages and prophets did not yearn for the Messianic Era in order
that [the Jewish people] rule over the entire world, nor in order that they
have dominion over the gentiles, nor that they be exalted by them, nor in
order that they eat, drink and celebrate. Rather, their aspiration was that
[the Jewish people] be free Ito involve themselves] in Torah and its wisdom,
without anyone to oppress or disturb them, and thus be found worthy of life
in the World to Come, as we explained in Hilchos Teshuvah.

hahahhahahhahhahheeeeeeeeeehoooooooooooey, the Lord
laughs you into derision rib-eyes.

5. In that Era there will be neither famine nor war, neither envy nor
competition, for good things will flow in abundance and all the delights
will be as freely available as dust. The occupation of the entire world will
be solely to know G-d. The Jews will therefore be great sages and know the
hidden matters, and will attain an understanding of their Creator to the
[full] extent of human potential; as it is written [Yeshayahu 11:9],
"For the world will be filled with the knowledge of G-d as the waters
cover the ocean bed."

and their god, has deceived them
with his sons of his synagogues who say they are the seed of Abraham, but
who do lie, for Abraham, Isaac and Jacob will be with the LORD and many
shall come from the east and the west and sit with them, but these shall be
cast into outer darkness forever.

___

New
party urges non-Jews' expulsion

ByKhalid
Amayreh

Sunday 12
September 2004, 15:25 Makka Time, 12:25 GMT

The
right-wing group wants to expel Christians and Muslims

Dozens of right-wing Israeli leaders have announced the creation of a new
political party which founders say will be dedicated to the expulsion of
millions of

Muslims
and Christians
from Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories.

Martin Lockshin, an orthodox rabbi and director of the Centre for
Jewish Studies at York University, organized a protest during a Nov. 20
memorial for Rabbi Meir Kahane, known for his belief that Arabs in Israel
should leave the country to preserve the future of the Jewish people,
reported the Nov. 26 internet edition of Canadian Jewish News.
"We’re not thrilled that a Jewish memorial preaches hatred,"
said Lockshin. The memorial was
held at the Chabad Lubavitch
centre in Thornhill Nov. 20. Kahane served as a member of Knesset but
was banned by Israel’s Supreme Court, which prohibited openly racist
candidates from standing for election. The firebrand rabbi, who founded the
militant Jewish Defense League in New York and the far-right Kach
political party in Israel, was shot to death by an Egyptian national in New
York in November 1990.

______________

Taking part in the ceremony were many leaders of the
officially outlawed but effectively tolerated Koch group such as Baruch
Marzel and Hen Ben Elyahu.

Kach is a violent Jewish militia made up of Jewish
activists who reject democracy and advocate the expulsion or, if necessary,
annihilation of Arabs from what they call Eretz Yisrael (Land of
Israel).

Since the outbreak of the second Palestinian intifada or
uprising four years ago, Kach terrorists
have killed scores of Arab civilians.

Those caught by the Israeli authorities usually received symbolic
or light prison sentences. The bulk of the perpetrators
are allowed to remain at large.

Expulsion

According to Ben Elyaho, a co-founder of the new party, the
expulsion of non-Jews from Israel would "resolve all of
Israel's political, economic and social problems".

Muslims were
massacred at the
Ibrahimi mosque by extremists

"Our party calls for cleansing the region extending from
the River Jordan to the Mediterranean from the Goyem
[derogatory for non-Jews] and thus guaranteeing a Jewish majority of no less
than 90% throughout the Land of Israel," he said.

Most of the founders of the new party are affiliated with
Kach and other similar groups.

Another prominent co-founder is Baruch Marzel, a colleague
of Baruch Goldstein who in 1994 murdered 29 Arab worshipers who were praying
at the Ibrahimi mosque in central Hebron.

Killer exalted

Following Goldstein's death at the hands of Arab
survivors, Marzel and his fellow Kach activists eulogised him as a
great "saint of the Torah". (Talmud
Bavli)

Moreover, Marzel and his friends erected a
memorial plaque made up of fine marble in the settlement of Kiryat
Araba near Hebron "to immortalise"
Goldstein's memory.

Eventually, the Israeli government of Ehud Barak, under
pressure from the Meretz party, partially erased the structure in Kiryat
Araba.

Kach was originally founded in the mid-1970s by Meir
Kahana, an American rabbi, who preached that
Judaism and democracy were incompatible and that Israel would have to
choose either Judaism or democracy, but not both.

Kahana, who eventually became a member of the Israeli
parliament, the Knesset, called for the expulsion of all Arabs from Israel.

Right-wing resurgence

Kach itself does not command widespread support in
Israel. However, with Israeli society as a whole drifting to the right
especially since the election of Ariel Sharon as prime minister more than
three years ago, the movement has come to enjoy an
influence far exceeding its actual size.

According to Professor Era Sharkansky of the Hebrew
University of Jerusalem, Kach is trying to exploit the growing rightist
opposition to the proposed Israeli withdrawal from the Gaza Strip to
increase its following.

"Those people will not accept anything, they are
against any settlement with the Palestinians involving territorial
concessions. And they will threaten civil war in order
to thwart Sharon's disengagement plan," he said.

Sharkansky suggested to Aljazeera.net that the
current political environment in Israel was increasingly conducive to
the growth of Kach, in light of the near takeover of the Likud by right-wing
extremists who oppose the planned withdrawal from Gaza, the dismantling of
Jewish settlements and the creation of a Palestinian state in the West
Bank.

Sharkansky argued that Sharon might be trying to
circumvent or neutralise the rightist opposition to his plan by getting the
US to accept his other plan to annex large parts of the West Bank,
including such settlements as Ariel, Ma'ali Adomim and Gush Etzion.

This, Sharon hopes, would desensitise right-wing
opposition to the Gaza plan, even though the annexation of the West Bank
settlements may kill any chance for the creation of a viable Palestinian
state in the West Bank.